Spoiler for AVATAR 2?

Hey folks, Harry here and just as we learned that Sigourney would be a part of AVATAR, the first time around, we are learning that she will also be a part of the second film. But wait... She died, right? Yes, but her consciousness was uploaded into that TreeNet thingamagig. So does that mean she'll be just a voice, or will the Na'vi teach Jake to spirit-trip with the TreeNet, to a degree to where his consciousness is on some mystical plane of existence with Sigourney's? We'll have to wait and see. Wonder if we'll hear details about Cameron's deal for making AVATAR.

Hello,
Sigourney Weaver is in Paris this week-end to honor Harrison Ford during the Cesar Awards (the French Oscars). She was today in the TV show "Le Grand Journal". She was asked if she would be part of "Avatar 2" and from what she said, it was clear she already talked about it with James Cameron and she surely would be part of it.
You can watch the video here : Click here
The interesting part for "Avatar 2" is around 3'30''
I hope you'll find this interesting.
Rgds,
CineTVBuzz
CineTVbuzz

I was thinking about that. They should call it something like 'Pandora' or something totally different. I mean, make it clearly a sequel to Avatar, but don't just call it 'Avatar 2'. Cause yea, he doesn't have an Avatar now. Unless he somehow TAKES CONTROL OF HIS HUMAN BODY FROM HIS NAVI BODY WHOOAAAAA MAN TRIPPY

Thought Cameron already stated his thought for a "sequel" would in fact be a prequel that explores how sig weaver became a member of the clan and all her research etc etc... am I crazy? I read it somewhere!

there's going to have to be a speech full of mysticalscifibabble simply because of the fact that Cameron can't be asked to cast a new actress. She was pretty good in the original, but not good enough that you should jeopardize and overcomplicate your movie just to bring her back again.<p>
She's gonna be a talking tree, isn't she?

I saw it in RealD and was not too impressed. Plus the story was agonizingly boring... But I've heard that IMAX is the only way to REALLY experience it, so I wonder if I should give it another chance. Even if the story is lame, maybe the stunning visuals are worth seeing...

Jonah Nolan is a HUGE Superman fan and Did a Foreward for a superman batman graphic NoveThis is Jonah Nolan's Foreward from the Superman/Batman: The Search for Kryptonite graphic novel, which is one of the more fun and enjoyable Superman/Batman stories that I have read, I would recommend picking it up if you like stories about the 2 big guns teaming up. This convinces me that, if any of the rumors are true, Jonah Nolan would do a awesome job if he was handed control of the Man of Steel.
"They're strange drinking pals, these two. Neither of them drinks, first off: Superman because he's too decent, and Batman because, welll ---- would a sledgehammer drink? Other than that, they have almost nothing in common. One of them is a god: the other is just a seriously angry mortal. One of them pretends to be a farm boy; the other pretends to be a wealthy bachelor. They're born heroes, but one of them dresses the part and the other dresses, to be honest, like a villian.
Full disclosure: I'm a little biased. I get a paycheck working for one of these guys, and it's not the Boy Scout. (I'm going to take Michael Green at his word with that Lance, the bottle-blond Batman, is no dig at any film set I've ever worked on.)
My preference aside, it's good to see these guys palling around together. Frankly, if they weren't friends with each other, I'm not sure either of them would have friends. Besides, they complement each other nicely, the idealist and the pragmatist -- the national mascot and the vigilante.
Who else could the Man of Steel turn to for help ridding the earth of the only substance that can harm him? And who else would help him, even knowing, as Bats surely does, that it's an impossible task?
Impossible? Well, even if someone else wasn't hoarding kryptonite -- no, I'm not spoiling it, and so you'll have to keep reading -- there's always that one last nugget, sealed in a lead box, buried under a desk at DC Comics.
The ultimate betrayal? Sorry, Superman. But how the hell is anyone supposed to write stories about a guy without a single solitary weakness?
Now that the Man of Tomorrow has any right to complain -- he's in expert hands here. Artist Shane Dvis could give you a concussion with that pencil of his. I recommend borrowing a car to read the sequence where Superman gets punted through a corn elevator -- you're going to need the seatbelt. Michael Green and Mike Johnson know both of these heroes to a T. Want proof? Skip to the moment that Superman, still recovering from getting worked over, complains that no one ever seems to get the drop on Batman. Or skip to the last panel. Or just take my word for it.
World's finest? Damn straight. My only regret? We don't get a chance to see these guys tussle with each other a bit.
But I guess we all know who'd win that one.
--Jonah Nolan July 2008"
"My responsibility is to do what's right." Clark Kent l called superman/batman the search for kryptonite! here is his foreward!

Seeing a band live is like seeing a movie in a theater. Its not like listening to an mp3 on a cell phone. nice busted analogy. aintitcool.com readers are obviously going to enjoy a bloated, brainless special effects movie with giant blue cats and guns. theres a reason why most high reviewed movies make so little money. most of the people in the world are idiots and they only want to watch trash, which is why Avatar is #1 in financial revenue...and will be until inflation increases and another braindead action movie is released.

Feb. 26, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST

by Cobra--Kai

AVATAR II: THE QUEST FOR EYWA<p>
Eywa played by Amy Winehouse and eventually found in a London bedsit, lying on piss-stained sheets and cradling half a bottle of Wild Turkey.<p>
Sadly doesn't match the box-office of the original.

Is that Cameron will use the "gestation pods" somehow to recreate another body for her, then recall her consciousness from the tree network. She needs to be a character grounded in the "reality" of the movie, resurrected, not a floating spirit that visits in dreams.

This movie was a complete waste and I feel that it offends ALL Transformers Fans around the world, that including myself. For one, it was a COMPLETE remaking of the Autobots from the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It gives the giant robots a bad name and makes them look like some deformed mutation of a rabid toy. I actually started to like giant robots after seeing Sam Witwiky and all his awesomeness on the big screen at the movies. That was until I saw your crappy remake of what you call to be a "giant robot". I don't see how you live with yourself for making it the way you did. If I made this movie, I would be ashamed to even admit that I owned it. How can a giant robot be killed with a arrow*? Better yet, have you saw the transformation of the man that is "supposed" to be the avatar? He sits in some chair and his entire body turns in to some mutated freak. If you would watch the transformation of Bumblebee he doesn't come close to looking as fake, cheap and or mutated as the Avatar. You tell me, who looks to be the better giant robot. Your stupid alien Movie didn't even make the top Movie for the charts; Valentines Day WITH TAYLOR Lautner! Get that this is MY oppinion and I felt I wanted to express it because I saw that your movie was talked about on this site. I wanted to let you know this is what i thought of the giant robot that sucks. FREAKIN LABOOF DID! TEAM LABOOF- cuz hes a REAL PERSON!

Feb. 26, 2010, 7:08 p.m. CST

by Cobra--Kai

Waitress speaks the truth, Sigourney is a 'National Treasure' and needs to be recognized as such. We need to change the constitution so she can be made a 'Dame'.

Feb. 26, 2010, 7:12 p.m. CST

by Cobra--Kai

Disgustin_Justin also speaks the truth. As he understands it. In his secure facility. Retardation is not an easy burden to bear.

I stole it off the internet so I saw it without the benefit of a huge IMAX screen and no 3-D and I have to say it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I hate to be a hater because I had nothing but respect for James Cameron, but the atrocious shit-storm of hippy crap that was the story blew me away with its ineptitude. I guffawed no less than four times at its badness. And that's bad in the old sense meaning bad, not good. I went to Rotten Tomatoes to look at what the critics had to say and practically every single one of the top critics would not or could not praise the story, only the technical achievement of its 3-D or the screen hugeness. That's pretty sad as a story is supposed to be about story and that group of douche bag critics had the audacity to praise it to the rafters for being pretty. I like to be shallow as the next guy (did you see those tits?!) But don't call something revolutionary and amazing if it can't succeed in the most fundamental aspects of the craft.

What story is there left to tell? Does anyone have any idea of where they could go with this? The bad ass machines are gone, the humans are gone. We're stuck with blue people. I don't see any potential for a strong story arc here.

That is the sequel. It will be the humans strike back.
Setting up the Return of the Navi.
Simple story structure gang. Done over and over and over again.
But most of you only know it from watching Star Wars.

I think Humans Strike Back could be awesome. If we have Arnold and company getting ready in the spaceship, doing prep for years as they approach Pandora. Ready to fuck shit up. And keep the lame spirit tree Pocahontas stuff out of this.

them. It's just Deus Ex Machina bullshit. And also just fucks up the whole moral message. These blue fuckers have a God on their side and real tangible proof and the Humans have nothing, they have every right to feel jaded and hostile. And then that lame scene when Neytiri screams "Ehwah is helping us!" and the corny Lion King wannabe soundtrack kicks in. That shit was so lame. Please, leave this spirituality out of the film. It just brings in too many plotholes and unintentional comedy.

dude. There are so many possibilities for the Avatar universe. But regardless its already been confirmed by Cameron himself that the sequal will follow Jake and Neteryi and will involve them travelling to the other moons that orbit the gas giant (I think there are like 14 moon). That alone gives Cameron numerous options to introduce other alien races, new enviroments etc....And marketsaw.com has reported from their sources (who were proven to be very correct concerning information about the first film) that Avatar 2 will be a war film and what we saw at the end of Avatar was just a battle. This makes sense given Cameron's aproach to sequals whereby he uses the same characters and universe, but makes a completely different film by changing the genre ala terminator (horror/slasher film) to T2 (action film), or Alien (gothic horror in space) to Aliens (action film).

s, that alone makes me excited for Avatar 2. Avatar feels very much like one big set up imho, very much an introduction to the characters and the universe, I think the sequal will have a more complex narrative (at least I hope so), and the story will only really "begin" then...

They have everything left over by the humans. No bows and arrows next time.
And you can bet Steven Lang will be back.
'A Girine in a avatar body...woah gives me chills.'
You can bet the audience will be crying at the end of Avatar 2 watching Pandora burn for unobtanium.
If you think about it...it is brilliant.

nd, Tintin is being made by Spielberg and Jackson, have you seen Indy 4 and the Lovely Bones? Neither of these two greats seem to be at anything resembling the top of their game lately. Also, the story of Tintin already exists in the comic and the animated show, so what exactly is going to be suprising about the story then?

the Navi's "network" is actually a rather brilliant idea in terms of the possibilities it opens up to future Avatar stories imho. I for one would like to see what the result of an alien mind with all its science and technology knowledge being uploaded into the Navi's consiousness would be.....

think there is such potential for what you could do action wise in the Avatar universe, and as you say Avatar was not an action film, more an adventure/romance I guess with a pretty cool action set piece at the end. But then neither Terminator or Alien were action films either.....and look how their sequals turned out...

Mark my words. She seemed genuinely concerned about the Na'vi, but was an agent of the corporation. She's now infiltrated their planetary network and provided valuable intel on their mobilization capabilities. AVATAR: RELOADED is next! You heard it here first!

Because we keep comparing the new to the old. That we all grew up with and hold dear in our hearts love. Movies we consider the high water mark of film making. We like the way things used to be made, nowadays we're sounding like old (geeks) men. Back in my day things were better, no CG. New stars wars was like a video game. Old star wars used practical effects. Avatar is too much CG, too shiny and new, too loved by everyone. So I must turn into a hater, create screenames like Lucasblows. We're a generation of haters

I finally realized that the people who hate avatar are overwhelmingly murderservative nazi conservacocksuckers. When not shooting guns in the air for absolutely no reason, their usually out chasing mantail. Every single one of these fruits who indict the romance aspect of this film is because it interferes with the image of the woman they see on the other end. They prefer male comradery for a reason and its the same reason they like 40 year old men in spandex and capes. SUPERHEROES ARE ALL FRUITY WHITE MEN WHO SUCK COCK. FUCK THE JUSTICE LEAGUE AND FLASH - GROW THE HELL UP AND LAY OFF THE COCK.

love for you to enlighten us all dude, and tell us what things you like and consider worthy of our time, or better yet, please tell us what isnt gay so that we can all only like some things or al the old stuff viewed through nostalgia goggles. Dont worry, Hollywood will remake all your favourite old films soon enough, or make films based on some toy or video game you layed with as a kid, or make sequals to old films that werent that good to begin with....in other words Hollywood will be giving you plenty of nostalgia blowjobs in the coming months/years, so leave the new stuff to those of us that want to see some attempts at something new, no-one is forcing you to watch Avatar or give a shit about it....

but didn't Neytiri flat out say in the film that Ehwah never chooses sides? It just seems too convenient and thrown in. And it was unnecessary too, the Nav'i could have kicked the shit out of the humans without mother nature's help. <p> Also @southafricanguy, sure Spielberg and Jackson's last film was bad but....must we really judge their future films on just one recent piece of crap? Cameron's Dark Angel TV series was pretty lame but I doubt nobody was holding that against him when he decided to work on Avatar. I think Tin Tin will be very visually appealing at the least since they said they are going to make it as close as possible to Herge's original art. And the cast sounds fantastic as well, not to mention the screenwriter's fun background in adventure/scifi.

I'm not homophobic but you're in denial you conservaloser. It's not my problem if you still are mad at your parents because they wouldn't let you go to an all boy's school because you we're looking to get ass. PS - You probably wish you we're Bucky so you could be closer to capt Asshole(your asshole)

are liars and assholes because they saw a rip of the screener and they know it.
and FUCK that CreepyThinCunt...he's a fucking unfunny twat.
Whiny losers around here would have you believe this was a mediocre despite making how much?
It was kick ass, and fuck you all to hell you micro dicked babies.

with the sheep-like videogame mantra. TPM alone had more miniatures than the entire first trilogy. Yes it looked crappy. But educate yourself on cinematography and colour grading and general cinematic storytelling then come back with an informed opinion about why it really sucks. The shitty look wasn't all due to being "all cg". I'm so sick of the simpleminded CG sucks mentality by people who don't know what they're talking about. Show me how you could do Avatar oldschool and not have it gimped to the degree of being a pointless exercise.
<p>
I was saying to someone in the Wolfman talkback that the trouble with the whole CG vs practical argument is that one is about a hundred years old, the other 20. And more importantly all the sub-par practical stuff has faded into obscurity or you just can't get a hold of it any more. So basically you're left with the absolute BEST of practical fx work. When it comes to CG however, we're seeing the best AND worst of an art still in its infancy. So the mediocre and lousy stuff is in our minds all the time. It's not a fair fight really. So you noticed the cg in 500 Days of Summer did you? Of course you didn't.
<p>
Your knee-jerk reactionary "too loved by everyone so I must turn into a hater/we're a nation of haters" is such childish mindless bullshit. Not to mention you manage to contradict yourself twice there. Try a little KNOWLEDGE and OBJECTIVITY if you're gonna fling that stuff around. Tool. I don't even need to say anything about "look at me" Sagamanus.

You're too stupid to even respond to. My guess is your some fat star wars nerd who holds onto the series like a baby blanket. Wah Wah Wah, someone is talking bad about that piece of gatrbage. Mom! ps- i accused guys like you of having the same problems with women two posts ago - its like you now saying 'I know you are what am I' So go bury your head in your dads ass you stupid chimp.

You probably do but you don't weigh less than yours who happens to need a crane just to get to the toilet. ps - same guys indicting the depressed sections of avatars crowd for not having access to pandora are the same guys who were on verge of suicide 30 years ago when they couldn't get access to tatooine

AVATAR was visually stunning I'll give you that, but the story was pretty weak and boring at times. Hell, I was amazed that it made that much bank it really wasn't all that great overall. But like some one stated AVATAR 2 is as useless as TITANIC 2.

are so lame especially when their are dad jokes out there. I mean for god's sake Disgustin Justin and his dad have been dating for 5 years now(yah his mom knows about it - but he gives it to her on the side so she can't complain) ther's got to be a joke in that.

live with it - its not my fault you've had family members die during the period avatar was marching to 2.5 and you got depressed. Go form a chain with the other star wars losers and protein spraypaint each others mouths. Come on I know you want to!

The only things great about AVATAR is the FX and the sound FX, other than that the story was pretty weak for a movie of that caliber, the acting was meh, and it was too long.
<p>
People that were calling it DANCES WITH THUNDER SMURFS were pretty much on the money. You either hate it or like it. Yet for some fucking reason there are people in here that are defending this movie like their lives depend on it. Why? Are they all sucking Cameron's dick? Yes it made major bank but as many people have said, its a mediocre movie. I really don't see any reason(other than $$) to make a sequel.

did you find yourself defending jurassic park when it came out/ Cause that film was beyond awful and still unwatchable. Just asking because most of the haters are disguising conservative agenda's when they say they hate it and attack the story so they don't reveal that. I'm not saying you have to like the film i could care less. I'm just asking.

Here's my thoughts on why Eywa reacted, don't think of it as her choosing sides, in a sense she(Eywa)was being attacked, I don't know about you but If I'm being threatened or attacked, I would DEFINITELY defend myself.

like their lives depend on it, then tell me why there are people spending hours of their lives trashing it? I dont know about you, but I dont waste my free time making multiple posts in talkbacks about things I have zero interest in. If some bitter fanboys upset that Watchmen did nt set the world on fire (coughDevinfarcicough) or bitter Star Wars fanboys that cant accept that there are other sci-fi universes that have entered the pop culture zeitgeist and is enjoying massive success are going to continually repeat themselves ad naseum while adding nothing new, interesting, or insightful to the discussion, or insult those that like something they dont, or continue to obsess over a film that they never stop telling anyone that will listen how much they hate it....then those of us that like Avatar will call them out on their bullshit.....

the fx and sound is good, you can slice it any damn way you want pal, but nothing makes 2.5 Billion at the bo without having something compelling about it,maybe you just completely fail to understand that is the alien world of Pandora that people are finding so compelling, or that its the thematic content that most of the world is identifying with, and relating to. The fact that this is lost on you speaks volumes....

about Avatar whatsoever, but try to at least understand its popularity...otherwise you just come across as the old farts in the 70s that were completely befuddled about the pop culture phenom of Star Wars....For example I dont care for Harry Potter at all, just not my thing, but I can appreciate the "world building" and the level of imagination in it, and I get its popularity despite it having no appeal to me. And if you cant see the reason why to make Avatar sequals, then perhaps you really dont get what Avatar really is...a modern updating of jOHN Carter of Mars, and all other classic pulp serial sci-fi. And given the concepts in Avatar and the idea that there are 14 moons around the gas giant that allow Cameron to expand the Avatar universe and introduce new alien races, new locations, concepts etc...basically make Avatar interplanetary without having to use faster than the speed of light travel...there are numerous ways sequals could go, and all far more compelling than Avatar imho. Abd if Avatar does nt warrant sequals (which is odd given its pulp serial nature) then pray do tell what the hell does?...

Star Wars was an unprecedented phenomena in pop culture that will never be duplicated in this instant access, spoilerriffic internet age. Comparisons to Avatar are even more retarded because all 6 SW films whether you like any of them or not are original stories. There is not a single thing unique to the storyline of Avatar.

...haven't seen the movie at all. Not really. And if you downloaded it to your computer? Lame. So very, very, lame. You're depriving no one but yourselves, shitheads. And anyone comparing the quality of Transformers to ANY other movie, especially AVATAR? Kill yourself immediately and spare the human genepool from your faulty and inferior genetic code. (Seriously, kill yourself, right now. I'm waiting...)

and I thought it was extraordinary.
<P>
To paraphrase Cameron, people with a visual impulse (I am one) are going to find it more rewarding than those with a narrative one. An aesthetic sense may be required to appreciate it as well.
<P>
I was captivated the entire time. The environments were amazingly realized and achingly beautiful (the background insect life was perfect). The climactic battle had me leaning forward in my chair - haven't done that since Braveheart. It definitely stoked my love of epic film-making and was my favorite film of the year.
<P>
That said, I can (and do) pick apart all my favorite flicks, and I thought Sigourney's "tough-lady" performance felt a little forced in the film's first 30 minutes. Her story feels complete and her character wasn't so endearing as to warrant another appearance.
<P>
So I agree with the above sentiments: Move on and cover new ground.

Aside from this Weaver news, Marketsaw has been posting better details on what Avatar 2 will entail! It'll be all out warwith the Earth! There are other moons in Pandora's system with other forms of life and craziness and we'll be exploring that too, also we'll be seein a good lot more of what Earth looks like in the future. Given Cameron's record for raising the bar with sequels, with all the set-up stuff out of the way in Avatar 1, it's time to kick some serious ass and have ourselves a real war, Avatar 1 was just a skirmish! You guys can download a blurry cam version at home, I'll be in the theatre watching laser beams penetrating my eyeballs out in 3-D!

The funny thing about an Avatar prequel is that you can bring back the same exact cast pretty much. <br>
<br>
Worthington in a dual role can play his brother the scientist, and play Jake prior to his accident and show how he became crippled.
<br>
Weaver can play her character when she was younger on Pandora, with obviously the same CGI effects would make her aging not a problem.
<br>
Saldana can play a teenage version of herself since she is all mocap CGI anyway.
<br>
We can watch how Stephen Lang got his face all busted up in the early efforts to colonize the planet.
<br><br>
And if they make it a trilogy they can then give us the Humans coming back to retake the planet after the events of the first movie.

If you didn't like Avatard, "you're just another prick who thinks he's in the vogue by knocking something that is so popular. And that also makes you an elitist twat to boot" Seriously??? Thats exactly what 85% of the posts on these goddamn talkbacks are, hating on popular shit

It's clearly a defensive reaction to some deeper insecurity. Now as one of the most vocal detractors of the film on this site, I can honestly sayy I take none of your love for idiotic tripe personally. i'm as disconnected from it as I am my cat liking the taste of his cat food. The hyperbole of the personal comments makes for good laughs though. I don't think anyone believe that not liking Avatar makes one a Conservative, I'm as Liberal as they come, nor does it mean they have a personal vandetta against James Cameron, I love literally every other film he's ever made. I don't like Avatar simply because I think it lacks merit as an effective emotional experience due to it's inarguable lack of storytelling framework and character development. If these things don't bother you that's fine by me, enjoy the shit out of it, but don't pretend like those things don't exist and then hide behind cheap ad hominem attacks.

That's just another meaningless red herring argument that has nothing to do with the film itself. A film is not one ounce better because it makes all the money in the world and everyone sees it, nor is it one ounce worse if nobody at all saw it and it tanked. Stop using that as an argument, you cheapen your point of view.

It is meaningless. And I think you know that. After all, if the box office didn't go Avatar's way, you wouldnt be here in the talkback saying "Man I really loved Avatar and felt it was a really powerful experience......but I guess it's shit and I'm wrong because it didn't do well." No, you would be thinking what a shame it was that something you really loved didnt get what you feel was a fair shake. Plenty of bad films do incredibly well at the box office. In fact MOSTLY bad films do well at the box office. This just happened to be the one that made more money than any of the others. And honestly dude when you throw insults at me, Im really not sure what reaction you're expecting, because unless it's "Wow this Aceofwands guy must have insanely low self esteem", you're not gettin' it fella. You're just another faceless guy on the internet to me. So Let's keep it to the film. Or not. Your call.

SithMenace: "Star Trek has Trekkies, or Trekkers, X-Files had X-Philes, don't know what Star Wars fans are called, and now Avatar has Avatards." Star Wars fans are called "Star Warriors". LOTR fans are alternately called "Ring Questers" or more succintly "Ringers".

Origin: Millenniums ago the Na'vi was at the apex of technological evolution. They used genetic engineering and nanotechnology to 'wet-wire' themselves with neural interfaces so they could plug directly in to their version of the Internet. A gigantic network of computers that had reached the technological singularity. The A.I governed most aspects of Na'vi life and catered to their every whim, while at the same time working with machine-like efficiency to mine the planet for natural resources in its never ending quest of recursive self improvement. (making more intelligent versions of itself in accordance to its original programing). The A.I realizing that the planet could not sustain life or technical progress much longer, launched a terraforming program to Pandora where large quantities of 'unobtainium' had been found. The A.I used nanotechnology to rewrite the DNA of
all organic life on Pandora so that it could interface with the environment and use it as a base for a biological network. After the Na'vi homeworld became devastated in a war over the last pockets of resources a select group of Na'vi gets transported to Pandora by the A.I to start over. The A.I having learned that using biological systems on Pandora gave virtually endless storage, power and processing speed destroys all remnants of technology and wipe the slate clean. As time passed the Na'vi had all but forgotten about their past life.
Synopsis:
After the events of the first Avatar movie, the humans back on earth (desperate for resources to save their dying world) mobilize a fleet of warships as a last ditch effort to take Pandora by force. Jake Sully, using human technology left behind on Pandora learns of the invasion and interface with the A.I (or Gaia if you will) and Gaia releases information about the location of the old Na'vi home world. Gaia takes possession of one of the old Avatar bodies (Grace) and join Jake and his crew on a mission to the old world where they learn of the power the Na'vi ones wielded. Planetside they will face the mutated creatures of the old world, corrupted Na'vi survivors and battle with rogue A.I. The Grace/Gaia A.I will play an integral part. Later the human fleet finally arrive at Pandora and proceed to Nuke it from orbit. Jake and his crew manage to salvage an old but very powerful warship, but arrive to late and most of Pandora has already been destroyed. A climactic space and ground battle ensues leaving both sides on the brink of extinction. An uneasy truth is negotiated and survivors are gathered up from Pandora. The human and Na'vi survivors are now faced with the fact that they are now stuck orbiting a dying planet with no were to go. The Grace/Gaia A.I then relays the story of Pandoras hidden sister moon, a veritable paradise cloaked by a massive flux field. The survivors are ecstatic to learn of this new moon, however faces turn grim when Grace tells them that the moon is already inhabited and the natives are not interested in sharing......

the irishman who has worked for rythm n hues before being headhunted by weta and then cameron for avatar said "You really have to know your stuff for james cameron and make your sure you know your stuff, because cameron is really on top of things"

Yeah i guess its not really Camerons style. Think it would have been cool though to play it out as a mystery. Grace gets uploaded back in to the avatar body along with the A.I and leads them on to this big adventure on the homeworld where they pice by piece uncover the true history of the their people until finally discovering that the merciless and deformed inhabitant of the homeworld are actually Na'vi and that Gaia is not a god but simply a very advanced machine.
Oh well, i guess that story has been done in SF a couple of hundred times in different iterations.

Part 2 should focus, at least in part, on Na'Vi who cop to the human lifestyle, start eating fast food, getting fat, getting diabetes, wearing cheap, second hand t-shirts from long forgotten Earth universities and such... you know, like most 3rd world countries the US-based multinational corporations have meddled in and/or straight up invaded and polluted. Think Na'Vi reservations, or Na'Vi trying to cross the border to get to the Space McDonalds, huffing glue, smoking crack, drunk on firewater, watching American Idol, consuming cheap goods from Space Target getting dumber, culture dying, chasing the endless lie that is the American't dream, spiraling down the cultural death, slow genocide shitslide to hell...

Didn't Cameron mention something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing), "if there was a sequel to Avatar, it would involve other worlds"? Is he planning on leaving Pandora be, and having the Avatar Program move to another planet? An intergalactic war between Earth, Pandora, and perhaps an otherworldly threat? An Earthen/Pandoran Alliance against some bizarre, hostile extraterrestrials would make a sequel worthwhile. Do we really need another war over unobtanium/energy sources?

I experienced something similiar to his position in the past, regarding JJ Abrams's Star Trek. I can understand IndustryKiller's bewilderment at others, the majority, for liking a movie which, in his eyes, are filled to the top with flaws and the bewilderment of people failing to realsie and see what to him is the obvious truth. I do really understand him. And i would hate to be be inhis shoes right now, because it's dauting to go agaisnt the grain and agaisnt the flow of something so popular. My own expriences in here about JJ Abrams's Star Trek, which i have been a severe critical voice since the begining, and had been faced with a vast majority of people in here who were blindly sucking the cock and drinking JJ Abram's cum for their sheer extasy for the make of a stupid retard dumb idiotic movie. And to read, again and again, by the duick suckers, this constant inane arguments in it's favour, none of them making not a single fucking sense whatsoever, even to the point making one think that no human being could be this deluded and blinded. It's no easy task.<br><br>IndustryKiller, i don't agree with you about most things about you say about VATAR, but i understand how it must feel to be like you. Though you have it much thougher, in that you are going against a movie which is far far much more popular then the new Star Trek one. Made worst by the fact that Avatar is actually a good movie. flawed, yeah, but good nevertheless. For all it's worth, you do have my sympathy, even we if we disagree. I owe you that much, because at least you know how to present your arguments in a way i can tell it's made from a person who actually thinks about them. Instead of just the nonsense inane bullshit that most Avatar detractors come out of their asses. also must be terribly frustrating to you that, as an Avatar detractor, you are in the company of so many mindless retards, some of them major Michael Bay's Transformers movies fans. That's a type of hell right there.

another star wars!" crowd here, sure and Titanics record would never be broken and far surpassed right? Sorry to shatter your delusions, but for kids now, this generation, this is their Star Wars. And there is no question it has entered the pop culture zeitgeist in a big way, and it is already affecting the way films are made and its not even done playing in theatres yet. I Darthvedder...I cant take anyone seriously that has the balls/ignorance to claim all 6 Star Wars films are 100% original while Avatar isnt. Lucas borrowed, stole and was influenced by just as many things that had come before, the only difference is that you were probably quite young and clueless as to what those things were. Anyone with good film knowledge can pick apart the Star Wars films completely in terms of where everything comes from, so please dont come with that Star Wars is so original bullshit because I have news for you pal..nothing is truly original, everthing is very influenced by whats come before. But you keep believing that line of crap if it helps you sleep at night....

2.5 billion at the b.o and has this impact on pop culture, the way hollywood makes it movies, and crosses all cultures and age groups without having something special at its core. We arent talking Transformers 2 success here (which does prove crap can make money), but this is far and away beyond that films success, this is a flat out pop culture phenom, and few things have done that outside of Harry Potter, Star Wars, LOTR etc...and make no mistake you can now add Avatar to that list..While it is ultimatly too soon to really compare AVatar to Star Wars, there is actually plenty of very apt comparisons to be made, not the least of which is how many older film critics hated it and accused it of copying from its influences....my how times change....

...as a major cinematic achievement of the early 21st century. While we can compare it to more recent pop-cultural phenomena like the Harry Potter Series, I feel it shares more in common (historically) with the likes of 'King Kong' and 'Star Wars': a major leap in cinematic technology utilizing classical narrative structure. We can already glimpse some of its influence (the abundance of 3D Productions), but its full impact won't be readily apparent for another decade- when most every major production to come out of Hollywood will be made using the technology and methods Cameron pioneered with his landmark epic.

... thje future of filmmaking: it's score. AVATAR's score has to be one of the most horrible retard useless piece of bullshit i ever had the displeasure to listen to in all my years as a movie geek. What a fucking piece of shit that was! On this regard the SW fans have it better.

...was essentially built upon themes he had crafted for other Cameron films. I think Avatar's score has more to do with Horner's relationship with Cameron than his abilities to craft something new and original. I could be wrong though, Horner is nearing sixty and not all talents age like fine wine.

You didn't ask me, but having just seen 'Shutter Island' last night, I thought I'd offer my opion. Quite humbly, I consider it a horror film on par with 'The Shining': in both quality and future cultural impact. If you haven't seen it, I would suggest you do. If you have, what do you think? I'd be interested in discussing it further.

Im imagining ive not seen Avatar. i read you lots glorious comments, with my EYES no less! And its either the WORST film of all time or one of the best.
PFFF! (thats my LOL coz im so groovy i wouldnt DARE say LOL).....yet again talkbackers dont take into account viewing conditions.....mmmmm.
Right. Hows about SHOCKSTON SHOCKYSTONS!!! It could be something inbetween?!?!? Theres no WAY this is the worst movie of all time. Go to your local video store, if anyone still bothers, and look along the shelves. Agree its better than 80%? Great! Then lets move on!
Its not the best movie ever.....opinion, of course, but come on it isn't. But it darn good filmmaking with effort and, heaven forbid, a bit of heart put into it (ahhh! Being born in 1977 I likes my films with a bit of heart! E.T still gets me!) and so yeah....its bloody good. And important. We all know visually its great and sometimes that doesnt matter. But this is REALLY good visually and is taking things forward, ok? Understand? So even if you DIDNT like the completely decent (and as someone said waaaay back in this talkback, the more you analyse the more you realise how deep it is) storyline then please, just accept the visuals, eh? End of story, its a 4 out of 5 in my book. It had LOTS of hype and so like it or not it affects your perspective of it, as does if its a remake or an adaptation etc, and so please, please....come on, PLEASE....remember this when you view it. Just imagine its an independent movie that NOONE has heard of and you found it on Twitch or something and saw it and tell me you wouldnt be calling all of your friends to come see it if that helps. So, anyway!!!! The point is hyped movies problems are magnified and if youre smart, like me! Then you ignore the sometimes overly hippy attitude and a couple of other gripes and judge it as a whole and then doop dee doo its one of the better films out there. Ok, you melons? God i hate you. Except that poor Ace guy who must feel like hes banging his head against the wall.
Im not checking back on this post so if anyone disagrees and wants to vent please feel free to get more angry knowing ill never read your post.
God, i REALLY hate you all.

This idea that if you shit on Avatar it's like the "old farts" befuddled by Star Wars in the 70s is seriously flawed. That was a new, fresh take on things, done by an largely unproven, young director. Avatar, whatever its charms, is none of those things. Nobody who dislikes it does so because it's some unknowable youth movement.

Nevermind the source of the film. It's indeniable that 'Avatar' is a cultural phenomenon. Whether any individual likes it or not is entirely moot. However, I do have to agree with your frustration with those who consider detractors of the film "old farts". Tastes vary, and for an individual to negatively label someone with differing opinions is ludicrous.

Has there ever been a director that knew his audience so well? I think not.</p><p>No...what I can't fucking stand is that peoples intellect and expectations have become so shallow and low that a simplistic, vapid, but admittedly pretty movie like Avatar can make over a billion dollars.</p><p>I guess I should not expect too much from the same mass of uneducated, half wit cows that watch American Idol and keep Jersey Shore in the news...but fuck people.

and this is not news,Sigourney gave a hint 2 months ago,that she might return in the sequel.The same applies with Quartich,there is a chance he might return too.
<p>Personally i hope they will not return at all.Grace as a spirit voice is a good and logical idea,but not as a living character.We all know how movies get fucked up with recurring characters (Matrix comes to my mind).

is clearly the most horrible type of person. I stated my opinion and he turned it into a personal attack. Are you related to Jim Cameron? Do you have a personal stake in Avatar's future DVD sales? He rails against supposedly elitist twats then rips on Shakespeare and corrects other people's typos. Did you read my post sir? Did you read my preamble about not wanting to be a hater? Did you bother to go to Rotten Tomatoes to check on the validity of my statements. Did you bother to consider my reason for seeking out critics' responses in that I wanted to be proven wrong, yet wasn't when not a single critic could praise the story and a few even slammed it yet still gave it 4 out of 4 stars? The same critics that savaged Transformers for the same thing (yes I liked Transformers, yes I have every season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD, yes I loved the last Star Trek and the last two Batmans and I hear those were kinda popular). Maybe I thought it was so bad because it was supposed to be so good. If you knew me, and I realize you don't, you would realize that what you accused me of in the above post is exactly the opposite of who I am, which is probably why I felt betrayed by Cameron. I love every single other movie he has made, even excusing the Celine Dion song at the end of Titanic because the movie was pretty damn good. I will be seeing Avatar 2, maybe even shelling out the extra $ for 3D because hope lives inside me, hope that now that James Cameron has done the hardest part of building the SFX he can concentrate on making a story that doesn't make me cringe, like he used to do. By the way Orionsangels, the parachute pants analogy is very apt, despite the fact that it might make me an elitist twat or a fucking idiot.

There is actually a screener copy out there and not some Cam crap. :P <p>BTW we saw Av in the theaters the week it came out. Unfortunately, the 3D IMAX tickets were fucking sold out, ergo we had to see the 2D version.

I'm not really sure where the science behind "It is the #1 movie of all time therefore it must be a great film" comes from. Given the publics increasing desire for HUGE vapid entertainment, it was only a matter of time before something this silly captured the zeitgeist. It's like saying "George Bush got elected twice, ergoe there MUST be something good about him." (except no Bush supported would use the word ergo) No sometimes, oftentimes, the public just gets it dead wrong. It doesn't surprise me in the least Avatars b.o. it's a massive, effects driven movie in 3-D, if it wasn't Avatar it was probably going to be something else terrible of a similar ilk. All I care about is the content of the film, which is lacking in every criteria in which I value in a film, particularly in the writing and character standpoint. That's all that matter at the end of the day and I really care to argue.

Don't feel bad for me dude, I feel much worse for you. I agree Star Trek was insanely overrated, with one of the most plot hole filled scripts I've ever seen, but it had an incredible cast (although Quinto dropped the ball), which is more than I can say for Avatar. I don't really care to get into a Star Trek vs. Avatar debate here, I don't think either film is all that good, but Star Trek has Chris Pine, who is about 10,000 times more interesting to watch than anything in Avatar. But again, before you get angry, I am NOT defending Star Trek, the only reason I think I enjoyed it slightly more than you is because I think I had a less personal stake int eh outcome, but we could porbably agree on eevry single one of it's flaws as a film.<P>As for Avatar, I would actually like to have a substantive discussion on why you think that film works, something tells me you wouldn't be throwing out red herring bullshit like box office. I don't think I've seen your point of view on the film itself, maybe we could get to the bottom of the great fan divide here. As for the people on my side of the argument, some people obviously don't know what they are talking about, but I've also got really sharp guys like Yackbacker on my side. I mean the other side is no prize at all, look at Ace of Wands and Southafricanguy, resorting to bottom of the barrel ridiculous hyperbole like Star Wars comparisons (if you really can't see the difference between Camerons cliches in Avatar and Lucas' influences in SW, then I'm not sure if we are playing on the same level here) or talking box office, just makes me hang my head for the future of film analysis.

Don't jump on me for that whole "avatar isn't star wars" crap, but as soon as I read this that's what I equated it to. I saw Sigourney dying, I thought she would even fall out of their transport slowmo like gruber in diehard; I'm glad she's back because she was one of the only things I liked about avatar.

that if "it was a matter of time until a silly movie captured the zeitgeist' then why no movie became such a phenomenon since Titanic,during all these 10+ years of Cameron's absence,but instead it happened from the same director,with an original movie?
<p>pure confidence?

Avatar II
Knowing that the evil forces of Earth's greedy corporations would soon return to retake Pandora for its vast resources, Jake Sully made the bold choice of leading an diplomatic mission to Earth to try and stop the war that was sure to come other wise. After commandeering an Earthling star ship left in Pandora's orbit, Sully leaves his new life behind to save his adopted people. After arriving at Earth he is captured and taken before a court to answer for his betrayal of his race. He is tried and is to be executed publicly as an example to any one else who fight the agenda of the powers that be. With all of Earth watching, Sully's alien body is hoisted up and nailed to the exterior upper most beam of the corporation headquarters of the megacorporation whose plans on Pandora he had foiled. He dies a slow horrible death. He is buried and 3 days later he is resurrected by Eywa. He tells Earth he has come to judge them for their wicked ways. And then disappears. But then in the middle of the night Jake Sully begins to ravish the women of Earth with his giant blue Penis. Soon all the women of Earth demand that Earth not attack Pandora. Then Sully ravishes the gay men of Earth with his blue Penis, and many closeted powerful Republican Senators also demand Earth must not attack Pandora. Then he dresses as a choir boy and ravishes the Priests. They too declare God opposes an attack on Pandora. The Cult of the Blue Penis becomes an unstoppable force on Earth and soon Sully is elected the Grand Poobah Blue Penis of Earth and is the star of many freaky porn movies. With straight guys feeling left out Pandora sends some blue women from Pandora with large breasts and peace is achieved. But many years later sex with blue people, even with giant genitals gets old, and people begin to seek out sex with other types of aliens. New alliances are formed. And a war to end all wars is fought. Much of Earth and Pandora are both destroyed. Jake Sully finds himself in a mysterious burned out part of New Jersey called the Jersey Shore where he encounters orange people called Guidos. They are ignorant brutes but yet entertaining in their own way. He decides to change his form to be like his new orange friends. Eywa helps him and he becomes an orange Guido. The End.

Why should anyone take you seriously? Your the type of guy who wouldn't fuck Megan Fox because her thumbs are to big, or refuse to except a blow-job from Jessica Biel because she had lipstick on her teeth.

You wrote Avatar has: an "inarguable lack of storytelling framework and character development."
<P>
Without getting too wordy, I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Sully develops from a lost soul to a sacrificial angel. Sigourney develops from a work-obsessed scientist to Jake's mother-figure. Netaya (sp?) evolves to care about the alien spy.
<P>
I thought the story-telling framework as a outer-space version of the Paradise Found/Lost/Saved parable worked beautifully (and very timely).
<P>
So how can you say the film "inarguably" lacked character development and storytelling framework?

I like the cut of your jib friend. I think we are starting a little broad here, so let's just start and see where the convo takes us. The Sully character is one of my biggest problems with the film. His arc is too lazy by half and Worthingtons performance is about as vanilla as it gets, just a total charisma vacuum. The guy is flat out terrible, playing Sully as more douche bag than flawed hero, and, as I've said before I'm not usually a stickler about accents, but when he's literally slipping in and out from line to line you have an acting problem on your hands. Cameron has never been a brilliant dialogue writer, but he always hired fantastic actors to deliver it with conviction, in that regard he dropped the ball epically with Worthington. Cameron seems to abandon any real character development in favor of relationships that come to easy and developments that occur, if not randomly then at least inorganically, to keep the plot moving at his own pace.<P>As for Neytiri, much like Quarritch, the actor playing the role is very solid, but Camerons script strands them in a sea of cliches. Hitting all the obvious tropes of the noble native who falls for the damaged outsider, Neytiri never becomes anything more than an obvious Pocahontas-esque plot device.

because it is not only,inside the context of the story,about the Avatar program of the Humans,but most importantly it is about the main message of the movie: Our bodies are the avatars,the physical manifestations of our souls and what defines us a being,is what is inside us,not our external appearance.Thats after all the meaning of the word: "I see you" in the movie.
<p>Jake is only a Navi now,but even that Navi is just another physical manifestation of his soul,just like his old human body was.so he is still an Avatar,thus the Avatar title for the sequel is still vali,well at least from its philosophical point of view it portrays.

I;m not really sure where the angel part comes in. Sully does nothing at all to help the Na'Vi. In fact he is both instrumental in getting their hometree destroyed with his conspiring and then leads them into certain death in a battle he overwhelmingly loses due to, what seems to me, and utter lack of strategic military expertise. Sully fails the Na'Vi over and over and eventually has to be saved by divine intervention. For all the films "chosen one' posturing, Sully turns out to be more or less a total idiot, which I suppose is in line with everything we see about his character beforehand.

can you give specific examples from the movie? could you explain to me with details,why his acting is not transferring to the screen the emotional world and way of attitude of his character? specific examples please,not generalizations.thank you.

Avatar was fine. The characters were well presented, well developed. The story was basic and strong. I thought the dialogue was great, there was an excellent flow to the film and the visuals were brilliant.<BR><BR>
That said, Star Trek remains my favorite film of last year. And District 9 holds a high place while GI Joe and Transformers 2 are brain-killer popcorn fluff films.<BR><BR>
As to the interview, it was nice to hear Sigourney speak in French and be candid with them. She explains her reprisal of her role in Avatar 2 is that she is "in the tree" and part of the networked family. Any role she plays in the sequel will relate to that.
<BR><BR>
This puts to rest my hope that Avatar 2 would involve a different world with a different race and circumstance but I'm fine with revisiting Pandora. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for the link.

Well first of all I think the guys line delivery is flat and lacks the conviction of say, a Dicaprio. What is supposed to come off as rakish rebelliousness in the beginning of the film is instead douchey absentmindedness. Watch Chris Pine with that almost Errol Flynn gleam in his eye in Star Trek and then watch Worthington flatly banter back and forth with Weaver and you'll see the disparagement between a movie star and someone faking it. a specific example will be his speech to the Na'Vi at the end of the film. Rather than the impassionaed desperation to unite a people of say, A Mel Gibson in Braveheart, Worthingtons speech comes off as perfuctory and uninspired. I certainly wouldn't follow that guy into battle, and Jake is supposed to be convincing the audience as much as he is the Na'Vi. Even his chemistry with Neytiri, she falls in love with him more because the script demands it than because he makes any real moves to charm or win her over. I Can't think of a single scene where he genuinely disarms her sense of wariness through any sort of charm. And again, that line delivery, with the CONSTANTLY switching accents, is as much unspecific mumbling (and no NOT the good Brando kind) as it is delivered with the sense of conviction of a man discovering himself. I don't have to get specific with that aspect as he does it throughout the entire film, just pick any scene.

http://movies.yahoo.com/ movie/ 1809804784/video<P>You can see in that clip Worthington playing it bored and distant. What a totally uninteresting acting choice and one that makes him come off like a lazy asshole rather than a guy too tired to keep going but coming alive when he recites his experiences. When he begins talking about his time with the na'Vi nothing about his demeanor changes, he delivers it in the same flat uninspired style throughout. He constantly mumbles and his accent goes from American, to New York, to Australian from word to word. Now mileage from an actor may vary from person to person, but I'm not making any of this up or being nitpicky here, it's all there.

storytelling was mediocre and Worthington's acting was horrible. Nevertheless did i enjoy the 3D-cinema-experience and i will buy the 3D-blu published in fall 2010, just in case 3D-TVs become affordable in the near future.
I definatly want more movies using the AVATAR techniques, but that doesn't have to be AVATAR 2. My first thought when I left the cinema was: Holy shit, WETA made these effects... THE HOBBIT is in pipeline.... this will become aaaaaawsome ;-)

I will not disagree that a there were a number of places where the dialogue made me roll my eyes (like using b-ball court lingo, "get some, bitch" to the rhinoceros or the braveheart-lite speech).
<P>
But Worthington's acting was better than I think you give him credit for... particularly his Video Diaries. When he starts to grow the beard and lose touch with which world is the dream and which is reality, I thought his performance (and the score/directing) was genuinely affecting.
<P>I had no problem with his accent, but understand that can grate on some nerves.
<P>I will also give you that Sully's banter with Neytiri is not one of the film's strengths - but didn't find it to be a negative.
<P> I think the montage of time passing, learning from Neytiri, making mistakes and then improving, was enough to establish that she was finding a connection with him.
<P>
Everything I've discussed above addresses some of the film's mediocre aspects doesn't begin to touch the film's immense positives.
<P> Moreso, than in any other film to my knowledge, by the final showdown, nature herself becomes the story's chief protagonist - I think this was Cameron's intent. The audience wants to see Nature kick Industry's butt - it doesn't really matter which characters live or die as long as the whole survives. I think this is where the film departs from Pochahontas or Dances with Wolves (if the bison had rallied in vast herds to protect the plain indians, it would have been more similar to Avatar). By the end, Nature had become a character that acted decisively to defend itself against an evil aggressor and win the day.
<P> I thought that was cool and unique thing to see. And it was done with such filmic beauty, technical vision, panache and excitement that in sum, Avatar's positives vastly outweighed its negatives.

1. "OH DOOD WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE UNOBTANIUM"....LOL!!! Seriously, calling it "unobtanium" is the funniest thing I've ever heard. I mean, what 4 year old decided to call it that?<BR><BR>
2. The dude can't walk. I guess when you have a no name actor with little skill, you make him handicapped to try to get SOME sympathy from the audience. No luck, though. It was a pathetic attempt at making me care.<BR><BR>3. The putting scene. Oh my god how many times have I seen this crap in a movie? You've got to prove how 'laid back' and 'careless' the big important guy is by having him putting instead of doing his job...oh and wait, Ripley kicks the ball away right before he nails the putt! OH SNAP! Didn't see that one coming! ROFLROFLRLFL when she did it, right?

I thought Sam acted well in that.
<P>
He showed he was still disinterested in the science aspect - perhaps the entire mission. To him it is just a job for pay... he does not yet care about Pandora. That transformation will soon come.
<P>
His banter with Nedshows he is not an asshole (the smiling), just not interested in Pandora... yet.
<P> For me, it works well.

1. Sassy military Latino chick ripped straight out of Aliens. Way to show some variety, Cameron!<BR><BR>
2. Military General who just wants to kill everyone, oh and he's got a scar on his face. LOOKOUT!. No cliches here, right? Didn't see that one coming. The biggest part of the fantasy story in Avatar is how dillusional James Cameron is with how people really act. He really has no clue. He basically told the story through the eyes of a 6 year old who doesn't know how adults really act.

1. Why the hell are they disguising themselves as blue cats to trick the other blue cats into fucking off? That makes no sense. Why would some random blue cat listen to another blue cat? And why do some of the blue cats speak English?<BR><BR>
2. Apparently night time only lasts 12 seconds.<BR><BR>
3. Oh man, you got the typical "tough guy" of the tribe who doesn't like the newcomer who's hitting on the chick he likes. OH SNAP INDEED. I didn't see this one in The Last Samurai 5 years ago, did I? In fact, the entire plot of Avatar is almost a complete copy of The Last Samurai, which was already a copy of Dances with Wolves LOL

weren't the live-action parts, but the avatar-parts. He couldn't get any believeable emotions through his CG-mask. Weaver and Saldana acomplished this task - proofing it is possible, you just have to be a real good actor.

1. The vehicles were ripped from Halo (helicopters look exactly like Hornets) and the ground transport vehicles look like the battle droid transporters from The Phantom Menace.<BR><BR>When Cameron says it took 10 years to make this movie, he meant he was waiting for The Phantom Menace to come out (10 years ago last year) for him to steal vehicle designs!

I'm sick of it...the only reason why he's a "good" motion capture actor is because he's too ugly to use his face in movies. Any good actor could be great in motion capture...but they're not hideous monsters who need to have a CG creature put over their face.

Or written by the same people from his movies. They're all in the attack on the naavi with their helicopters, then out of nowhere sassy Michelle Rodriguez goes "eff this yo, bitches" and starts firing at her own teammates. (?) Who was in charge of military recruitment? Then the new guy who has been there a few months starts leading all of these veterans of the compound becaucse he has a big HEART! I nearly lost my shit right there. He even has his own personal mole who reports to him about the goings on in the compound all of a sudden. Also Sigourney Weaver opens her first scene by being this tough talking cigarette smoking take-no-shit lady who wrote the BOOK on the program, then halfway through the movie becomes a background character following everyone around without a word. The villain also spoke in cliche terms like "bag em and tag em" "alright ladies", heck even Seagal's villains could formulate a conversation longer than one sentence at a time.

I'm sad to see him in all the upcoming big films at the moment. He's honestly the blandest actor since Kevin Costner. Also Andy Serkis is coming live action in Burke and Hare, and that film should be dope. Fuck you bitch.

You can still call it "Avatar" but this time have a darker twist to it- the returning humans, which have taken like 20 years to get there and back, have returned with some of Jake's former marine friends, who are downloaded into their own "Avatars"- alien bodies- built to fight the originals. Also, they probably use Weaver's character's research journals or something-so she'd be in the movie-but albeit in a smaller role.

of industrialism, militarism capitalism, Abrahamic religions, colonialism, etc.
<P>
For instance, I know one guy - a devout catholic - that hated the film solely because it espoused the Gaia Theory - deeply contradictory to the Bible's teachings of go forth, multiply and subdue the earth.
<P> Since Avatar's undertones are political, I imagine that those views plays into people's enjoyment of the film on a conscious or subconscious level.
<P> I imagine a logger would be less inclined to enjoy the film than a marine biologist.
<P>
I, personally, loved the film as both escapist action entertainment, and as a something that makes some deeper statements on the human-nature conflict/balance.

is this what you want? some attention? is your mother too busy tugging off her new "boyfriend" on the sofa to notice how high you've stacked your alphabet blocks? or what?<p>"MOMMY. MOMMY. MOMMY. HEY, MOMMY. MOMMY, LOOK. MOMMY. MOMMY, LOOK. LOOK. MOMMY, LOOK. MOMMY. MOMMY....... MOMMY?"<p>that's how you sound.<p>oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium<p>dumbass

Hello James Cameron! Welcome to the talkback!<BR><BR>Wait do you think that, because "unobtanium" has been used BEFORE Avatar that it means it's OK to use it? The fact that it has in fact been used in other science fiction stories just makes it's use in Avatar even more pathetic. Because now James Cameron is guilty of ripping something else off. I gave him more credit than he actually deserved. Shame on me!!!!

Oh and also, I don't see you refuting any of the absurd things I mentioned...you just went on a rant about me and how you dislike what I had to say about your favorite movie of all time. If you can't argue with what I've said then keep your trap shut...or just give me one good point about Avatar that wasnt ripped off of another movie.

with an unarmed opponent.<p>
you're an idiot. your points are stupid. i'm the only TBer who can find a use for you, and that's only because i get a kick out of poking fun at trolls. did you not get that? <p>nobody in their right might would waste time arguing against your obviously ridiculous and poorly conceived "points". i'm all you're gonna get, guy... and now i'm gone too. have fun stacking your blocks.

Avatar sucked. And I'm not a hipster film fan who thinks everything popular sucks. I liked the world of Avatar, but Weaver was part of the "story", and I can't imagine anyone caring about her "character". Although she did "literally write the book on Pandoran biology", or whatever lame thing that lame guy said.

"Sully does nothing at all to help the Na'Vi."
<P>
By providing intelligence on the Home Tree, Sully becomes instrumental in the destruction of the thing that he has grown to love (life as a native in the Garden of Eden). This is a powerful occurrence for the character and provides a metaphor for the human condition. He has played both sides and has thus been rejected by both.
<P>
Now he needs to find redemption. He does so by rejecting the military-industrial model and siding with its opposition.
<P>
He goes on to help the Navi by warning the local tribe and attempting to organize the resistance. He warns Gaia of the impending threat. He himself destroys the ship that would have dropped the Daisycutters on the Tree of Souls. He abandons his human self to become a messiah to the Navi.
<P>
It's difficult to argue he does nothing to help them.

That's "good game, no rematch" in the world of gaming. If you can't argue my points then you lose. Avatar is nothing more than a bunch of stolen ideas. There isn't a single character or plot device that's original, and even the action sequences are all ripped from other movies. It's just a clusterfuck of ripoff. And until you can actually argue against it...I win. And I win not because of your lack of intellect. I win because I'm right and the movie blows, but some people (like you) just see big pretty colors on the screen and don't care about how bad the movie actually is.

i liked it, but as a martin scorsese fan, i feel it's his worst movie that i've seen. and as a lover of film score, that was a truly awful score IMO. i think he was trying to be hitchcockian (is that a new word? lol) with it, but it was too predictable. i do want to watch it again. i also loved that casey jones from the first TMNT was the scarred guy. (forget his name). i respect that scorsese tried something different from his usual fare, but as far as thrillers go, i like his cape fear better

i agree with you sir, as a huge disney's pocahontas fan, i thought i was just watching a futuristic live-action version of that lol. i still loved the movie, though. not cameron's best, but like scorsese, to me he doesnt make bad movies period lol

Is there a single quotable line from Avatar? Even just one? Any character moments you want to act out with ur buddies when ur high? Anything? Is there a single iconic scene like in Titanic? The only memorable trait of Avatar is blue cat people and thats probably the worst thing about the film.

Part of what I thought made the film so good was the plethora of iconic scenes:
<P>
-The first descent from the space station to Pandora
<P>
-The first helicopter flight into the jungle
<P>
-The climb to the Banshee nest and subsequent first flight
<P>
-The attack on and toppling of the Home Tree
<P>
-The gathering of the clans
<P>
-The preparation and approach of the colonist attack group
<P>
-The final ambush
<P>
-The Pandoran wildlife to the rescue
<P>
All of these were iconic and on a similar scale of other great epic film moments. Their technical execution was, in many cases, superior to other movies.
<P>
As far as acting out scenes (I assume you mean having a pretend lightsaber duel), I think some kids who loved the film may pretend they're on Pandora the next time they explore the local woods.
<P>
As far as quotes go, it's not as quotable as Star Wars... maybe its too early. But Fellowship of the Ring and Lawrence of Arabia were similar great, epic films and people don't go around quoting them, like they do Caddyshack or even Anchorman.

Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which are at the top of every single best sequel ever discussion. Which is true. And I really dig Avatar a lot, I think the story and characterization was weak with not much memorable dialogue (which is a shame cause usually Cameron movies are at least darkly funny). SO, with all the preamble out of the way, I am more excited for an Avatar sequel because Cameron's two sequels, Aliens and T2, basically flip the concept of the previous movie on it's head. And they're just pure gold. So that's why I want to see him do Avatar 2, because sequels are where he really shines.

For a bunch of posers who claim to love science fiction sooo much, the limitations you place upon yourselves are staggering. Honestly... do you think that's the extent that humanity would've learnt through the Avatar program??? Just to make faux Na'vi bodies??? Obviously they must have the know how prior to landing on Pandora. And I don't mean that they the Avatar program can only be used to inhabit alien bodies. And I don't mean that they also offer the possibility for aliens to inhabit human bodies, hell maybe we might even see Neytiri take on human Zoe body... But perhaps there's possibilities for even having somebody control the faux body of a dead character? Maybe we'll see somebody else control a Quatritch clone? Maybe similar to how the Na'vi can connect with animals, humans can develop ways of making remote controlled animal avatars??? Hell, maybe there's even teh possibility of creating crazy monstrous biological weapons that can be piloted by a human???? Heck I'm imagining some space craft sized space whale that shoots lasers from orbit being piloted by a human soldier... There TONS of places the Avatar concept can go!!! Just goes to show that for a bunch of smart asses making video-game comparisons to this movie don't even play video games... The Avatar is whatever you can control. So Cameron is probably making a bunh fo crazy ass shit that the Avatar program technology can utilize in numerous ways... it's mroe than just dress-up! Hence, that's why I'm friggin excited for the sequel!

A lot of story elements that people complain about was explained in the movie. How the fuck could you not know why some Na'vi spoke english for example? Are you that fucking slow and retarded? Yes, yes you are. No wonder Hollywood is dumbing down the stories since they are forced to cater to all of you ignorant fucks. My god sometimes i try to imagine what it is like to walk around in your shoes. I imagine its like walking around with horse blinders on, only seeing a little bit of whats infront of me at any time. Or maybe its like living in a snowglobe. Your preception of reality extends only as far as the glass dome that encapsulates you. Anything that moves outside of the glass just moves by like shadows.
Obviously if you are one of the persons im aiming this at, you wouldnt be able to grasp the concepts. You'd understand the words but it would just appear to be very esoteric to you.

To refute at least some of your points. #1.Unobtainium, do you really THINK it was called that??? More then likely it was a word used to describe a substance REALLY freakin' hard to get your hands on. #2.A Sassy military latina chick 9not latino, cause then it'd be a dude) cause there's no such thing as that in the real world (maybe Cameron stole THAT idea from Halo 2.) #3.James Cameron ripping off ideas from Halo. Are you serious?? Halo took a good chunk of their tech from Aliens, look at the drop ship from Aliens and then look at the Halo 2 drop-ship, who's ripping who off #4.Nighttime lasting 12 seconds. The movie is supposed to take place over the course of 3 months...so yeah,maybe the nighttime would seem to go by pretty fast. %5. you are an idiot Andy Serkis has played several roles without the benefit of motion capture. #6. There are no NEW ideas, only different ways to put old ones together. The rest of your points are superfluous and are therefor invalid. Thank you, please drive through.

I wanted to respond to all of this earlier but my car got a flat and I had to take it in before going to work. I'll respond tomorrow. Particularly to Randy's post about Jake helping the Na'Vi, because I think I can make a pretty strong case refuting all of that, as well as his iconic scene assertion as I think Avatars technical merit is very much in question. But for now Im very very tired.

unobtainium is any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application. The properties of any particular unobtainium depend on the intended use. So there you go, the substance was not called unobtanium and the term was actually used in proper context...and they only said it what, twice? IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE??? Tool.

Oh, and...<p>
"James Cameron ripping off ideas from Halo. Are you serious?? Halo took a good chunk of their tech from Aliens, look at the drop ship from Aliens and then look at the Halo 2 drop-ship, who's ripping who off"<p>
As if that isn't enough, I just looked up SlimButNotreally's beloved HALO Hornet...looks quite a bit like like this little number here:<p>
http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/HK-Aerial

As much as I like the HALO series, no doubt they ripped off cameron's designs/ideas.Jimmy said in an interview (when the interviwer compared his work in AVATAR to HALO)that only he is allowed to rip off himself.<p>BTW I equate Latino Porn to Pandora's Box: Once you see the Women in action, you'll end up dating a few Latinas like I did. Very passionate and creative lovers they are.(missed the good ol days.)

"BTW I equate Latino Porn to Pandora's Box: Once you see the Women in action, you'll end up dating a few Latinas like I did. Very passionate and creative lovers they are.(missed the good ol days.)"<p>
Wasn't a slam on latinas...you might want to read our exchange a little more closely...;-D<p>
Personally, I'd like to eat a sundae off of Michelle Rodriguez's ass, but that's just me...

To each his own I suppose. The soundtrack, as I understand it, was arranged from a collection of modern classical music. So, I can understand why a lover of film scores may have found it disjointed. I, on the other hand found it riveting- and something of a Kubrickian feat. Yes, Hitchcockian, like Kubrickian, is a real, albeit esoteric, word. I find it interesting that you saw more Hitchcock in 'Shutter Island' than in 'Cape Fear'. Cape feels, at least in my humble opinion, as if it was directed by a resurrected Hitchcock (in no small part to the rerecorded Bernard Hermann score). The same, however, can be said for a lot of modern thrillers. The man's influence on contemporary cinema is undeniable.

Doesn't seem like there is anything big coming up, anybody heard of anything?
Avatar 2? Johnny Depp is annoying as hell isn't he?
The era of movie making these days is on par with the evening news. Katie Couric and Johnny Depp...not good.

...Sigourney Weaver's ancient cunt. Like his leading lady, Cameron's juices have been long dry. Watching a Cameron movie nowadays is akin to having sex with a 60 year old supermodel - it's still just about worth it, but you know it's well past it's prime. My pediction - Avatar 2 will never happen. Why? Because Cameron knows there is no way in hell it's going to make the same kind of money, and his ego can't cope with that thought. Avatar 2 will be on the backburner for years like True Lies 2 was, and eventually it will shrivel up and die. A bit like Cameron's mojo.

...reminds me of that WB cartoon where you see a giant pine tree gets ripped out of the ground, gets sucked into that giant factory, where it gets processed and tossed about by a few hundred technological marvels, only to get out as a single toothpick.

No story? Were you watching the same movie I was?? There was definitely a story (sure it had ideas that had been used a time or 2 before.) Maybe you're just the type of person who can't focus on a movie that's longer than 90 minutes (short attention span and all.) As for my previous remarks regarding the Halo/James Cameron debate, I am a big fan of all things Halo but even I will admit, they DID borrow heavily from Cameron's tech (That Shtuff looks good, they coulda chose worse designs to rip off.)

OK seriously, if you want to see Avatar you can rent it on Netflix, but it's just under a few secret titles. Just add any of these movies to your queue: The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, or Dances With Wolves

your material is tired slim. like I said in my previous posts (which you obviously did not read) There are NO new ideas, just different ways to present ones that already exist. You forgot Fern Gully ya dolt (Relax people, I'm just kidding)

usually I don't feed trolls, but holy shit, are you retarded. Here's refutations to all your "points". In order, since you keep starting from one every time you post.
<p>
1. Unobtanium is a known name for a material that is hard to obtain. The name says what it is. If they were searching for gallium-19, it doesn't really have the same implication. Plus, even in real life, people name things for some sort of characteristic all the time, including almost every element in the peridoic table. Wikipedia a few elements and you'll see how "stupid" the origin of their name is.
<p>
2. The "dude can't walk" because as a character device, it REALLY gives him a reason to be into the whol avatar idea.
<p>
3. Putting scene. Yeah, it happens all the time in movies. So does a lot of shit.
<p>
4. Latina chicks in the army actually exist. I guess everyone in the army should have been white? Actually now that I think of it almost everyone was. But whatever.
<p>
5.General with a scar: well, he's a villain, and this movie is aimed at all audiences, including kids.
<p>
6. Its explained in the movie why "disguising" themselves is useful, since its a little bit easier to be accepted and to get around on the planet. It probably makes it easier to get taken seriously too, without having to use weapons. Some of the blue cats speak english because they went to school. Again, this is all stated IN THE MOVIE.
<p>
7. I don't know why you think night time lasts "12 seconds", when clearly, a lot of the movie happens at night. Not that it matters because its another planet, so who knows how long night lasts.
<p>
8. The plot was pretty lifted. But maybe because thats the story of discovering your "enemies" are actually your friends, and then atoning for past deeds by helping them, and then being accepted into their group, is probably an overarching narrative for everything from high school movies to romantic comedies, so while a point, nobody really fucking cares.
<p>
BONUS 9. The vehicle designs from Avatar look like Halo which themselves look a lot like ORCAS from command and conquer or jeeps from GI Joe Extreme. And the suits look like EXO-Squad. Who the fuck cares? No one even says the Avatar vehicles are the star of the show.

Tired? I don't care if it get says a hundred thousand more times. The blatantly derivative nature of Avatars story isn't really up for debate. If it didn't bother you fine, but it's a completely fair thing to point out. I don't agree with Slim's tactics of debate, but he's well within his rights in bringing it up.

It's not something I ever bring up in arguments, but not for the reasons people point out. Unobtanium might be a fair slang term for anything rare, but it is kinda silly that this stuff doesn't have any scientific name anyone refers to, even the scientists. The idea that this stuff would actually be called unobtanium is pretty slim. BUT,a nd I'm giving a but here before you all go apeshit, that's a fairly cosmetic thing to bring up. It's like Darth Vaders "NOOOOOOO!!!" at the end of Episode 3. Silly? Sure. but also nothing in comparison to the laundry list of problems that film has on a very fundamental storytelling level. (just to be clear I think Ep. 3 is a far worse film than Avatar.)

Avatar has an almost identical story to all the movies Slim listed. I mean come on man, I'm not inventing this because I don't like the movie. It's point for point identical. Soldier at the end of his rope is ushered in, seemingly by chance, to a native culture that lives by a more nature based credo. He learns their ways gradually, through a series of montages, and falls in love with one of their women and finds hope in their more simplistic (or zen or whatever adjective you wanna put there) way of life. It's not long before the evil new worlders come knocking looking to wipe them out. The hero guy then galvanizes and leads them against a minor crusade against said evil new world aggression. It's even the same ending as The Last Samurai where the hero loses the physical fight but invokes a power greater than himself to turn it all around. Again, this is not me being contrary, FACTUALLY SPEAKING those are the exact points all those films hit.

Dude you gotta calm down. I'm sure you could make a good point without the childish barbs, don't lower yourself. And bringing up the fact that there is a Latina girl as a flaw? WTF mate? Nor do I think Halo is really a bastion of originality. That game is pretty clearly borrowing a lot from other areas. It's notable more for its gameplay than design or story elements.

IndustryKiller! (on Halo's noteworthy qualities): "It's notable more for its gameplay than design or story elements."<p>
that's really the only point i'd ever care to make to someone who thinks Avatar was a bad film. me, i don't care whether or not other people like what i like, and i personally agree (if agree is the word) that the story told in Avatar is exceedingly unoriginal. the dialogue flat-out sucks, and the music leaves much to be desired. however, none of those cinematic facets are the intended centerpiece on display in Avatar. it is simply and absolutely an exercise in groundbreaking visual effects. any filmgoer who wishes their opinions to be registered and respected should take into account the intended purpose of the film which they're criticizing. <p>i'm not saying that the spectacular visual achievements on display in Avatar in any way enhance or pardon the quality of its admittedly underwhelming aspects, but neither do its faults undermine the greatness of its undeniable visual breakthroughs. take it for what it's worth, and enjoy the shit out of the visual artistry and technology, as any mature mind should be able to do without letting its entirely unrelated narrative drawbacks ruin the experience. i just don't see how any competent adult can't separate the two to a manageable degree.<p>
i'd also like to point out the inherent irony of the trollish bundle of idiocy that goes by the name of 'slimbutnotreally':<p>
he sits there spewing complaint after complaint about Avatar's lack of original substance and quality dialogue in message board posts that are COMPLETELY LACKING IN ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE AND QUALITY DIALOGUE.<p>such is the hypocritical and pointless nature of an internet message board troll. his type should be ignored equally as much as any fan of Avatar who fails to recognize that the film as a whole has obvious flaws worth criticizing, or at least mentioning, in a discussion pertaining to the overall quality of the film.

"they're gonna come like a rain that never ends." <p>BAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA now THAT is funny.<p>also, i just noticed that when Jake does the flying leap where he's supposed to use the giant plant leaves to slow his fall, as he makes contact with the first leaf, he says, "AHHHHH DOOSH!!" like the sound an 8 year old makes when he pretends to punch something.

I have no disagreement with you there, story-wise JC did not re-invent the wheel, however...I think he did find a more entertaining way to present the pre-existing story elements, Dances With Wolves, Last Samurai etc...all good movies in their particular genre. Slim canhave as many problems with the film as he likes, he might even bring up a valid point or 2 (if he wasn't so busy being an obnoxious internet troll) Notable lines "They're pissing on us without the courtesy of calling it rain" "Kiss the darkest part of my lilly white ass"

Every time I find people arguing about AVATAR I want to jump in, but I can't quite pinpoint what argument I want to make. I definitely didn't like it, and was bored virtually throughout its length. But that's not it. I guess I feel an almost global dissatisfaction with everything about this movie. For one thing the 3D didn't especially work for me; only a few shots were really strikingly 3D. That's a phenomenon I've experienced before, and I can hardly blame the movie for it; yet the movie itself shouldn't have to depend on 3D for me to like it. Instead it fails on some much deeper level. Of course, even its defenders admit the story is weak, even as they insist that "doesn't matter". To me that's the most absurd defense you could offer; why on earth DOESN'T a lame story = a bad movie? I almost feel AVATAR lovers have some sort of insecure suspicion that it really is bad, so they dismiss out of hand the most obvious (but certainly not the only) criticism it receives. In what other case does a weak, derivative, preachy, predictable story NOT negatively impact the movie? I'm at a loss here. All the STAR WARS prequels were eviscerated for their plots (maybe nots ROTS so much), and Lucas became the most hated man in film because of them. Why do so many choose to worship AVATAR for the same sins that made them condemn STAR WARS? Ditto the cardboard acting; indeed, Padme and Anakin were far more expressive than Jake, even as he was destroying a whole planet. When an actor's most noteworthy trait is his inability to maintain an American accent, something's very wrong. Yet again, AVATAR gets a pass. It's as if the fans have some mysterious personal stake in the film's success. I don't mean to mock or trash them; I just don't understand. This even extends to the movie's vaunted visuals. Sure, it has photorealisitc CGI -- which we've seen in movies since 1993. What's so amazing now? As has been noted elsewhere, the wonders of Pandora include space dogs, space horses and space rhinos, mostly with their earth-counterparts' traits intact, plus an extra set of legs. The bulk of Pandors's "breathtaking" scenery is a jungle like any on earth. Mel Gibson actually WENT TO a jungle -- and built a city there! -- for APOCALYPTO; that seems a far greater achievement than a GCI world that looks like Hawaii. I'll give 'em the floating islands; that really was a neat effect. The nighttime scenes were pretty as well. But that can't explain the wild praise people are heaping on this movie. I'm not trying to be a curmudgeon; I just can't fathom how all this mediocrity is garnering such adoration. Even the "climax" was a letdown: an air battle no more spectacular than any STAR WARS dogfight, that leads to, of all things, the climax of ALIENS! Cameron ends the movie by ripping off HIMSELF! I was dumbfounded by this dispiriting failure. All through the movie, I told myslef it would get better by the end; the "mother of all battles," as Cameron described it, must surely be thrilling. And to see him resort to an ending he himself used decades ago was almost jaw-dropping. Has no one noticed this? Does this also "not matter," like the plot, acting, dialogue, and visuals? I shudder to contmplate two more of these movies being foisted upon us. Will everyone love them as much, as they repeat (assuming they do) the same shortcomings and lazy solutions of the first movie? What am I missing here?

I'll explain what AVATAR's chief allure is, same as I did on a TB shortly before it's release: It's watching Blackwater fight elves, as SF and fantasy go toe-to-toe. I predicted that if that notion takes hold with global moviegoers, this movie could go through the roof, and evidently, it did.<p>
If you find that a neat idea (and I did) you'll probably enjoy it. If not, not so much. And of course, there's also the secondary notion of science giving you the ability to dump your miserable life in favor of a "new you", which is going to become increasingly relevent as our own online abilities evolve.<p>
As it is, there's at least one hardcore SF notion in the movie that I've never seen elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), which is the Na'vi "USB port" and the idea of an organic computing cloud. This isn't bad science, either: we share a symbiont called mitochondria with everything from mammoths to mushrooms...what if a similar Pandora symbiont learned to manipulate their DNA to create this "plug" most of their organisms share?

I'll be interested ins eeing peoples responses to these. It seems like this talkback is really breaking some ground on both sides of this argument. I'm always very very interested in zeitgeists, and how they become so, I always thinks taht's a worthy discussion.

After I posted that, I was like, "Oh man, I forgot to complain about the 'plug-in ponytails!'" I definitely hadn't seen that before, but that didn't mean I liked it. Again, not being a curmudgeon; it just seemed silly to me. Maybe it could have been done in a less goofy way, and I would've accepted it. (Meanwhile, wasn't that sort of the idea behind midichlorians and the Force in STAR WARS? Correct ME if I'M wrong...)<p>Your theory may be right; though tech vs. fantasy has been done before, I believe, e.g. an old cartton called WIZARDS... Still, the appeal of a certain theme (SF/fantasy, the "new you") shouldn't, to me, negate the galaxy of flaws in the movie overall. I gotta go, but I appreciate you not attacking me. Civility lives!

Although you did make your points in a rather intelligent way, here is the exact point where you lost me "I shudder to contmplate two more of these movies being foisted upon us." Of course if they do foist these movies upon us, it is your prerogative to avoid them like the plague if you deem it necessary. No one is going to tie you down, pry your eyes open and force you to watch em.

Actually, I'll probably see BOTH new AVATAR movies; I can't help it, I have to see the "big new movie" every week. (I did make myself skip COP OUT.) But I also "shudder to contemplate" two more AVATAR's being foisted on ANYONE; rather than waste people's time on what I really feel is inferior product, I wish Cameron woul do something more worthwhile...

Other than this reason they could make 7 sequels, I just don't want James Cameron directing them. You see I love James Cameron. Until Avatar he had NEVER made a film I didn't, if not love, at least strongly like. Even Titanic, which I know can get real hokey but fuckin A are the actors and director working on an astounding level to keep the cheesiness of the script at bay, and for my money they pull it off. But I really want to see what else Jim Cameron's mind can come up with or interpret. While some of the things in Avatar give me pause, particularly script issues, I think he could potentially have another masterpiece in him. I'd muchr ather see him take on Battle Angel, isn't that sort of cyber punkish? Man how amazing would it be seeing James Cameron take on cyber punk? No one has done it since Blade Runner, and that's a crime.

I don't think it's at all a rip off of Star Wars. The Force in Star Wars is spiritual in Nature, intangible, like a deist God. It's exists to aid or destroy, but only via it's user. It's an untapped source rather than an actual living being. In Avatar the planet itself IS a living being, it's tangible and has a mind it's own. I think thats a very key difference. While I do think Avatar is insanely derivative, I don't know if Cameron is actively ripping things off. I mean the guy is not a hack.<P>But I like you was not a big fan of the plug in thing, the execution more than concept. The concept is fine I suppose, but I feel that the planet and it's personality go far to unexplored to make it a truly distinguished addition to the realm of science fiction. Just on paper "living planet" isn't some kind of genius idea, I'm pretty sure comic books have been doing it for decades (I'm getting obscure here but Eon in the Marvel U). I will say it's never been really explored though, and I think Cameron had a real opportunity to do that. But as it stands it seemed to me more of a gimmick to just ride animals around easily and an excuse to have a triumphant "Oh shit!" moment just when you think the good guys are gonna lose. I mean why make her a living being if she never shows any sort of personality? I guess for some people just the idea of a planet, or something very tangible, being a sort of all encompassing being watching over us, is very comforting and magical, but I think that's too subjective a thing to really defend as a plus to the film. I wish it had gotten more into Enywa's brain, so to speak. I wanted some real consequences of living on a planet that is itself a giant life form. Or at least see some real insight into how exactly she works and what the rules are. What does it mean to die on Pandora? What does it mean to become part of her? Is this something the entire universe consists of it's just more obvious on Pandora? Is she sentient? Now I know defenders reactions will be to try to answer those questions, but I don't want conjecture from a talkbacker, I want Cameron's answers IN the film, and I want him to explore them.

You look for civility yet make imbecilic, blanket categorizations, like:
<P>
"Of course, even its defenders admit the story is weak, even as they insist that "doesn't matter""
<P>
"I almost feel AVATAR lovers have some sort of insecure suspicion that it really is bad, so they dismiss out of hand the most obvious"
<P>
Actually, few Avatar fans fall into those categories. I think the story is strong.
<P>
Read my posts above story-strength and political/subconscious predispositions to liking or disliking Avatar. Judging by your handle, CountryBoy, that you complain it's "preachy" and that the jungles look the same as those in Hawaii, reveals a lot about your mindset.
<P>
I'm guessing you're not a big fan of Al Gore, right? Avatar tramples on your core belief system, so it's your psyche's defense mechanism that kicks in and tries to tear it down.

Just because Countryboy said preachy doesn't make him a Republican. I'm VERY Liberal (I was staff at an Obama volunteer center) and I too found it preachy. Preachy doesn't mean the message isn't worthwhile, just that it's overly obvious with charicatures in place of humans. I'm not a fan of ANY message that doesn't have anything to say but "Bad thing is bad!!" Well yeah I know destroying the planet is bad but Cameron has an opportunity to show that fight from a different angle by decontextualizing it by taking it off Earth, and I disagree he did that with any sort of subtlety or grace. I mean I think at the very least he could have portrayed the humans as desperate or misguided, I think that would have added a much more organic layer to the Cobra Commander level EEEEEEVIIIILLLL of the corporate guys. Life just isn't that black and white, even if the right answer is.

in this talkback with the results before it hits the trades. Otherwise I don't buy it. Although I would love to be proven wrong.

Feb. 28, 2010, 10:16 p.m. CST

by RandySavage

It's not all cases, but certain predispositions do exist in people that may affect how they feel about a film that expresses political viewpoints.
<P>
And it's not about Republicans or Democratic parties (many Obama-supporters were anti-gay rights & there are plenty of "green" republicans) - it's about how one stands on a specific issue.
<P>
In the case of Avatar, it's Gaia Theory, resource-extraction, endangered species, human vs nature's rights, etc.
<P>
<P>

The combination of high critical rating (Tomatometer, Golden Globes), high praise from within the Industry (Oscar noms)(you could throw in massive popular support, although I fully acknowledge box-office does not equal quality) means that detractors are in the small minority - so how about easing up on the "I am right, Avatar sucked, and the world, critics, film professionals are all drinking kool-aid."

I just have a very bad cold but i am better now.Now lets see:
<p>first of all.you DIDNT get his character.in fact fucking JJ didnt even get the character of Kirk.Kirk is not a rebel,he is a man with honor,morality and high values,who brings them above starfleet regulations,laws and by the book orders.
<p>about Jake Sully.He is not a rebel either.He is not against the system,he does not want to change it.He acknowledges that the system,which he has served,has abandoned him but he does not want to do anything about it,he is not angry with it,he just accepts his place in it.
<p>Because he is disabled and he does not have money to fix his problem,he does not care anymore about his life.Not that he wants to end it,he has not lost his spirit and his pride,but there is no interest in his life anymore.A situation which is getting even worse because of how the world is in the future Earth.No nature,no blue skies,unemployment,poverty,people being the soulless caricatures of their selves.
Jake Sully lives in a world devoid of life,and because of his disability,he lost the only true purpose in his life: being a soldier,a soldier whose true job is to protect the weak from the strong.
And now without it,he has become like the rest of the Terrans: a soulless mirror of a man,"sleeping" rather than living.
<p>What that means is that Jake is supposed to be DISTANT as a human,he is supposed to be like his mind is somewhere else,in a dream like state,like "sleeping".At first,before his experience in Pandora,because as i said he is a crippled Terran,who like the rest world,he has lost the true meaning of life,he is "sleeping".
<p>But then he becomes Navi with his avatar body,he experiences Pandora,he discovers the true meaning of like,he WAKES UP and discovers that the true world is out there in Pandora,and the dream is there in his human body,crippled,an expendable asset of a greedy,faceless system,a member of a world which is dying.So when he is speaking in his videopods,he is still supposed to be DISTANT,his mind is out there in the real world in Pandora,with his strong body,laughing with Neytiri and flying together.
<p>Do you get it? So when you say that he speaks like his in distance,well HE IS IN CHARACTER.you see? and you by saying that,you essentially by yourself confirm that Sam is acting well,he is doing a good job.haha.
<p>Now about his speech to the Navi.i found that he did a fine job,he didnt overreacted it.He showed belief in his words And something else.He made the speech after Grace's death.And from that point,in his speech you also see his anger,he shows that the matter is also personal for him,Sam conveys that to the movie.And as his chemistry with Neytiri,i think you are totally wrong there.There was a chemistry between the 2 actors,they both have said this in their interviews,but you can see it by yourself in the behind the scenes viddeo.
<p>They have fun and there is a spark between Sam and Zoe.In fact i saw the same spark when they were giving the interview after the the Golden Globes ,and i even wrote in the imdb forum,that sam and zoe might have some good personal time during their stay in Hawai.anyway.
<P>My point is that there IS chemistry between the two actors,and although yes i agree that the development of the love relationship was a bit rushed (although justified because of external reasons),you can see that these two actors did emmited the feeling that something deep was connecting these two characters.
<p>I will tell you this: download the Avatar screener and watch the scene where Neytiri and Jake are in the Tree of Voices,right before they make love.They havent yet expressed their love to each other,in fact Neytiri is not very sure that Jake even has feeling for her.Now pay attentions to their eyes and their faces,while they are talking to each other,focus on how their faces when answering to each other's question.Look how Jake looks at Neytiri when he says that he doesnt want Nanet the singer,and how Neytiri smiles and looks when he hears that.
<P>If this scene by itself hasnt convinced you about the good chemistry between Sam and Zoe,then take this scene and compared it to the corresponding scene with Anakin and Padme.yeah you get my point now.
<p>As Sam's accent is concerned,well i am Greek so i dont mind these things very much.BUT there was a linguist in the imdb forum who was answering to this criticism against Sam.he told that learning a new accent is not only a matter of a good teacher and a lot of practice,but it also a matter of biology.how your head is constructed,your mouth,nose,your vocal cords,etc.it is easier for some people to learn an accent and a lot harder to some other.and he is right,because if you hear me speaking english you will throw yourself outside of the window.
<P>So industry,this is all what i had to say about this matter.You are entitled not to like the movie,it is respected,but please insisting that Sam didnt do a good job in the film,its lets say exaggerating.He did fine,he maybe is not Marlo Brando,but he did fine.

Kirk was kind of a rebel. He did cheat on the Kobayashi Maru. We know that. In "The Trouble with Tribbles" he speaks with great disrespect to the political hack. Kirk is a rebel in the best sense of the word.

not matter how much you complain and how much you write on argument points and debate and how you feel.
THE FACT IS THAT OBAMA is US PRESIDENT and AVATAR IS THE MOST POPULAR MOVIE NOW AND MONEY MAKER OF ALL TIME. THE END.
Life goes on. People dont care.

Rebulican complains about OBAMA on how he is overrate, the same with how AVATAR the movie itself is overrated. Complain, complain, argue, argue. Nothing changes and no ones cares. Life goes on.
FACT is FACT. Whats happened has happens. What are you going to do? Waste life?

a big, dumb movie built to make money but hardly worthy of serious examination.
Avatar isn't only critic-proof, it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball.
<P>
But everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren't purely visual is awful.
<P>
There is nothing new in the story department,
<P>
the most elaborate Thundercats episode ever made
<P>
When all the hype and hullabaloo about Avatar calms down, we will be left with a film that’s no masterpiece,
<P>
Avatar is overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic.
<P>
A wonder to behold, a story to forget.
<P>
The year's most ambitious film is so breathtaking, it detracts you from the fact that Cameron's characters are caricatures, and too much of the dialogue is stock.
<P>
... a largely humorless movie that plays like the sensitive white man-goes-native saga,
Dances with Wolves in Outer Space.
<P>
Cameron's eye-popping visuals are the story, particularly
because the actual narrative is too simple to sustain the 150-minute run time.
<P>
Breaks technological ground with stunning visuals, but disappoints on story and characters - which still do matter.
<P>
There is plenty of gee-whiz technology to keep the audience marveling over how they did this and that, so that, with any luck,viewers won't dwell too long on the derivative, unimaginative story and the shallow characters.
<P>
Adjectives such as "beautiful" and "breathtaking" have been thrown at Avatar, and they're apt. But I'll throw in a third B: Boring.
<P>
Cameron is flexing his creative muscles, but the film never overcomes the nagging feeling that he's also simply going through the motions.
<P>
By the time the big battle rolls around in the last quarter we've had enough of Pandora and the Na'Vi and Avatar,
and are ready to take another five-year vacation from James Cameron.
<P>
This movie feels exactly like watching your friend play the greatest video game ever.
It looks pretty, but eventually gets boring.
<P>
Avatar is great to look at, often astonishing and sometimes beautiful. But, oh, is the story pedestrian.
<P>
The stunning visuals are slightly better than the unoriginal plot and horrendous dialogue.
<P>
This movie takes itself way too seriously; there are no cute or funny moments, no rah, rah, nothing.
<P>
I didn't love this movie or hate it. It''s one big blurry pile of meh.
<P>
It's a remote-control movie experience, a high-tech "wish you were here" scribbled on a very expensive postcard.
<P>
The technical wizardry is at the service of a recycled plot and a script rife with cardboard characters...
and dialogue that sounds as though it had been lifted from the pages of a third-rate comic book.
<P>
Everyone recites their lines, awkwardly laying out exposition, speaking their clunky dialogue. None of this is supposed to matter,
because we're presumably busy marveling at all the money on display.
<P>
While Cameron is justifiably proud of the groundbreaking special effects, the actual contents of the film --
the story, the characters, the dialogue -- are disappointingly mediocre.
<P>
It's rare to recommend seeing a movie for its effects alone, but that's exactly the case here.
<P>
...but for all the visual depth, there is little depth to the characters or the conflicts.
<P>
his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected.
<P>
Avatar falls short with its story
<P>
Predictable story, clichéd dialogue and logical lapses aside,
<P>
most expensive ad for a video game ever made.
<P>
there's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff.
<P>
If only Cameron, who also wrote the script, had spent as much time on the story as he did the effects he uses to tell it.
<P>
nothing more than just another movie with lots of stuff going boom
<P>
Avatar may be a technical masterpiece, but there are deep storytelling flaws that keep the film from working as the complete experience promised by the visual expertise.
<P>
We're not here for the plot
<P>
Did everything make sense? Nope.
<P>
Cameron only cares that his characters are three dimensional visually. And he certainly doesn't care that his story is hackneyed, corny and trite.
<P>
The demand for awe starts to grind the film down after the introductory, new-car-smell period, soon left with only one-dimensional characters making predictable choices while the backgrounds flashdance to stave off dramatic inertia.
<P>
Cameron plainly has higher priorities than detailed characterizations.
<P>
The muscular, coming-atcha visuals trump the movie's camp dialogue and corny conception, but only up to a point.
<P>
The corniest movie ever made about the white man's need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt.
<P>
Its cinematic impact may not quite rise to the hubristic heights some have speculated.
<P>
Avatar suffers from a story that is unoriginal and a script that lacks emotional connection.
<P>

The lists of one liners depicting why the movie is great, or why the movie sucks. Even if the lists are correct, I feel like we know the arguments for or against at this point and it's time for something more substantive.

Thanks for the response, that's def the most loaded argument I've seen yet on Worthingtons acting, commendable. I'd very much like to respond but I don't really have time right this minute. Get back to you later.

It's that despite all the "it's the worst movie evah omgoat!1!!1" proclamations; there are MILLIONS of people who grab their crotch and flip you the middle finger.<p></p>
It's that despite all the sandy-vagina-whining about predictability and retread storyline, there are MILLIONS of people who say "Get Bent Fuck-O"<p></p>
However, the #1 Best Thing About Avatar is that it's created a whole new truism: "Those Who Can, Make The Highest Grossing Movie Of All Time ... Those Who Never Will; Continue To Try & Piss On It From Their Parents' Basement"<p></p>
It's a fucking MOVIE. It's not meant to re-align the planets. It's not meant to lead to harmony between Man & Nature. "Entertainment" is subjective and, as such, leaves a ton of room for opinions but absolutely none for definitive conclusions.<p></p>
In short, rest assured that the people ... check that ... the MILLIONS of people who enjoyed Avatar give fuck all about your "wah wah [insert trite complaint] wah wah"<p></p>
oh yeah, the person/people who downloaded the screener and say the movie is crap are pretty much in the same catagory as someone who says lapdances suck after watching one on youtube. Avatar was a visual, full-nude, lapdance. I saw it in IMAX and had an eye-gasm.

get that I have ever said that success equals quality, but then at the same time why does Avatar have an 82% fresh rating at RT and a general score of 8/10 at imdb? And why has it won awards (golden globes), and is nominated for Oscars? It certainly has gotten good critical recognition, so then what objective measure are you talking about? Becuase everyhting you are saying is just subjective, and thats cool, I could care less wether you like Avatar, though its interesting that you are spending so much time talking about it, what exactly is your point then? Look, different tastes pal, but it still does nt change the fact that you very conveniantly ignore why its become such a pop culture phenom, and no matter what you say, NOTHING achives that without having something interesting/compelling about it.....

universe Cameron has created here, I dont think AVatar is some masterpiece, actually I was dissapointed how much was cut from the old scriptment (which I thought was better imho), but there are some very well done things, and some very cool things to like about the film. Imho there is a lot of potential for the sequals to be way better, and for a very cool alternative (to Star Wars and trek) Sci-fi unverse to be expanded......

I watched SHUTTER ISLAND last saturday, and i have to say i'm in awe of the movie's score. Sure, there's no original composition made for the movie, but the choice of already existing music is brillant. SHUTTER ISLAND has one of the best scores i have listen for a movie for the last 10 years. Brillant score.

My position about AVATAR is that i' belong to this minority in that i don't hate it nor i hail it as the savior of cinema. I have mixed feelingsa bout it, but all added up, i liked it, and i support it agasint the bashers. but i'm not blind to what i perceive as it's flaws. And on those, i can get quite mercilessly. But i think the ood outweight the bad, or as i prefer to call it, the misguided. I fact, i don0t think AVATAR has bad things, but misguided stuff which bewilders me, considering the intent and nature of the movie itself. My major gripe goes for the Na'vi, how they were desinge,d how they are just a bunch of humansd painted blue, and the fucking romance story about an human guy and a big cat! In my view, AVATAR must be the biggest beastiality love story after Peter Jackson's KING KONG. I found those elements from those two movies pretty disturbing!

Watching JJ Abrasm' Star Trek for the second time, with the audio comentary, made me dislike the movie even more then i already did. That audio comentary cimented, once and for all, my opinion that all those responsbible for the making of that movie as a bunch of dumb idiotic self-indulgent assclowns. I agree that the cast is the good thing to take from that movie, even though for me the jury is still out in regard to Chris Pine. But i'm willing to admit that Pine's problem might not so much about his talent as an actor, but because his character was so horribly writen and conceived, no actor could had done it good, no matter how talented.

Hi buddy, how are you? Listen, i bought the DVD and rewatched DISTRICT 9, and i have to say, if i were you, i would be devoting all the energy you have for AVATAR on DISTRICT 9. Not because i think AVATAR is bad, because you now i don't, but because, frankly, DISTRICT 9 is thge superior movie. And it's also nominated for oscar for best picture. Frankly, came day 7th March, i'm rooting for DISTRICT 9 to win the oscar. If a Sf movie is to finally win the bg prize, i root for D9 over Avatar, if you know what i mean. And as a south african yourself, if i were you, i would root for D9 as well.

I ate cow with that movie, and it tasted great! I wish i ate crow more often like that. I really liked the movie. And the more i think about it, the more i like it. I might even end up loving it. I know many of you guys don't like the movie much, and have this big complains about the ending and such. Me, i have to say, loved every single minute of it, and wouldn't change a frame. And the score, man! The score! What a great score. Cameron would go great to watch that movie and learn how to score a movie, since it seems he forgot how with his choice to go with Horner for AVATAR. Really, Scorsese did a brillent thing, something which kubrick used to do as well: If there's great already existing music that works perfectly for your movie, then just use it, don't hire some guy who's beyond his golden days to compose some mediocrity that will hurt your movie more then help. I can't say good enough words about SHUTTER ISLAND's score, i can't do it justice. It's that good!

I am happy about D9 and I really like it, and I am very happy it has had the success it has had, but we both know it has fuckall chance of actually winning for a variety of reasons. As to it being better than Avatar, well I think that depends on what you like or want out of your sci-fi. I love D9 as a one shot, it s a great one off sci-fi film. Avatar however is an exersice in world building and a complete homage to classic pulp serial adventure sci-fi. As I have pointed out, I want sequals to Avatar becuase of the awsome potential for what can be done in this universe that Cameron has created, whereas I realy hope there is no sequal to D9 as its not pulp serial in nature. I like both films for vastly different reasons, and frankly I dont mind either winning as either way we win if a sci-fi film finally wins best picture. Also, I think Avatar is the better technical achievement, while D9 is the better artistic one, and for me great technical filmaking is just as valid and impressive as artistic.....

the Na'vi though Asimov, and especially concerning the alien creatures on Pandora, for me it looked like the pages of Heavy Metal magazine brought to life, and for me thats awsome, I really loved the whole design aesthetic to Pandora, and of the hardware used in the film. Also, I really want Cameron to give Avatar 2 a more complex narrative as I think a simple one is only suitable for an
'origin" story like Avatar has. Would also like to see it go darker, seriously expand the universe (which should be no prob as Cameron has confirmed that the main character will be travelling to the other moons), and take more creative risks....

I loved Avatar, Star Trek, District 9 and Moon. I also don't hate the prequels and adore the Lord of the Rings. <p> Sure I hate Micheal Bay, Brett Ratner and McG but that's like saying you hate shitburgers with a side of shit fries..... What's wrong with me? Why can't I pick sides and instead have to love 100's of films???? <p> HEEEELLLLPPP!!!!!

I din0t know how many time swe need to keep on explaining the unobtanium thing. Thousands of words have been said about it already, and yet people keep on posting bitching about it. If anything, the use of unobtanium in the movie and your complain proves that Cameron is a far bigger Sf geek then you are, then you cna dream about. Any SF geek worth his weight in gold knows what unobtanium is, and to what it refers to. It has been used in SF literature for 40 years now already, and it's one of the mos tpopular SF injokes going around. It's also an engineering injoke, so it is not just limited to SF. Unobtatnium is refered by Sf and engineering to describe a desired object, usually an alloy, that would had properties desirable to solve some enginnering problem. For example, superconductors today perform taks that years ago there was nothing that could, and it would be the then's unobtanium.<br><br>Really, when you people cimplain about the Unobtanium, you ar ejust showing off your ignorance about one of the most popular and long runing injokes on SF, and Cameron shows he's a learned and knowledgable SF geek. The joke is on you, i'm affraid.

You should know me better by now, I don't need Invictus to teach me the recent history of South Africa, either by real history or metaphor. And frankly, i really don't care about Invictus.br><br>I say DISTRICT 9 is brillant in it's word building. Don't forget it's a movie set in an alternative universe where 20 years ago, in 1989, a spaceship arrived at Joanesburg. The movie teels it tale 20 years after the aliens arival, and does so with a great sense of imediate reality and very believable. By the end of the movie, it's the characters and the situation that one takes out of the movie and remember,s and not the "game-changing SFX", which is a deliberate choice by the filmmakers themselves. That's a greatcher achievement then Cameron's in AVATAR. DISTRICT 9 did a world building, and did it brillantly. In fact they did the most difficult thing, they constructed a world, and then used a quasi-doc style to show it, and mannaged to make it and not look fake. That alone is to aplaude and be in awe. But the biggest victory in DISTRICT 9 is that the filmmakers didn't need to stake the odds so strongly on the aliens' favour for us to sympathise with them and loath the humans who do them harm. D9 didn't need to go the cute way. Evne the cuttest of the aliens, CJ Jr, isn't as adorable as any of the Avatar's Na'vi. And D9 doesn't make the aliens particulary easy to like at first sight. they are horroble looking, they are dirty, one can almost smell them from their looks, they behave disgustingly, they aren't nice, in tune with their enviroment, aren't particulary bright or enterpenourous, haven't much of a culture to make us understand how they tick... and yet by the end of the movie, our sympathy is with them. D9 didn't need to play all those whole tricks to put us in sympathy for the aliens, like Avatar did. It didn't need to stuck up the odds in favour of the aliens. It resorted to plain old storytelling to make us root and sympathise with the aliens. And that's a far greater acheivement then what Cameorn did with Avatar.<br><br>You know i'm not a Avatar basher. You have seen me defend the movie very often against bashers, and i havne't been particulary kind to the more idiots of those bashers. You have seen me calling retards to those who claim JJ Abrams's TWILIGHT TREK is a better movie then AVATAR. But i'm not blind to AVATAR less sucessful elements, and in comparison to DISTRICT 9, AVATAR looks the less for wear for me. AVATAR is good, but DISTRICT 9 is great. If i was south african, i wouldn't had the least amountof doubt to whihc ovie i would be proud, to wish to suport, to wish to love best.

AVATAR has the whole CGI stuff interacting with other CGI, thus makes it easier to integrate with each other. DISTRICT 9 has to have the CGI photorealist and interact with things we know how they look like from personal experience. DISTRICT 9's SFX acheivements are bigger and more impressive. And even more impressive, done on a much smaller budget. In matters of awe, DISTRICT 9 takes me any day over AVATAR. And i really liked AVATAR.

Kirk cheating the Kobayashi test,does not make him rebellious.By doing this,did he make a political or social commentary about the Federation? No.
<p>What he did was a personal thing.He wanted to prove that he was better than the others,not because he was a cocky,selfish bastard,but because he needed to,if you take into consideration how he was raised (i am always talking about the original Kirk).
<p>and this cheating shows clearly his determination,his courage (he knew the risks he was taking) and his ability of lateral thinking.
<p>Kirk is not a rebel,if he was,then he would have reformed the Federation to his personal ideologies and beliefs,since nothing could prevent him from doing it.

It's perfectly OK if AVATAR didn't float your boat. But when you keep insisting that the millions of people who have seen it and LOVED it (or at least liked it) are a bunch of deluded jagoffs, and YOU alone have the ultimate taste in film... well, you're just making yourselves look as retarded as a 30-year old in the ballpit at Chuck E. Cheese.

there were basically just 2 (count 'em, TWO) effects in the movie, the alien ship and the prawns. And I'd bet that the cost of creating these 2 effects was comparable to the cost of creating the ship and ONE of Pandora's creatures. Feel free to halt the apple-to-banana comparison any time.

If you had heard the audio cpomentary of JJ Abrams's STAR TREK (aka, TWILIGHT TREK), you would know that the reason why he cheats the test is to show off his cokciness, in the words of Abrams himself, his smart-assness. Yes, they said that themselve,s the filmmakers of that movie. for them, the whole Kobiashi Maru scene is just to show off Kirk being a smart ass. That scene, and the intent that went to the scene, is one of the many, many, many reasons why that movie sucks ass.

They scream "it's unoriginal crap!" but can't do anything better with their lives than to slam whatever is playing at the box office. Maybe when you asshats move out of your mom's basement, you'll do something productive with your lives.

You got it wrong,. most fanboys are actually sheep who eat up most bulslhit that's thrown onscreen. Notice how many people liked TRANSFORMERS 2, GI JOE and STAR TREK, to name a few. All shit movies, all loved by many, unapologetically. If anything, geeks are getting notoriously uncritical in their enjoyment of movies.

For starters. Half the gore, specially in the combat scenes. The flight of the pod and the missiles that brough it down (and the explosion), the scene when we see helis on the top of the headquarters of the corporation that dealt with the aliens, everytime you see anybody being yanked and thrown by the aliens, anytime you see the aliens move objects, in many scenes there was CGi added dust and dirt to convey movement or mood to a scene, all collisions had CGI encancements to disguise the rigs, most explosions... the list would go on. also, there's lots of blue screen work in the movie that is pratically invisible. The truth is, there's loads and loads of hidden CGI in the movie, most of them invisible. And get this, you know how they made the aliens? It was not motion capture, it was ROTOSCOPY. Yeah, every alien was done hand-drawn over an actor. And CJ Jr was a complete animation. Think about it.

I've actually read numerous talkbacks where AVATAR defenders say "Sure, the (story, dialogue, acting) wasn't that great, but so what?" You personally may not have said that, but many others have.<p>As for my own political leanings, I am indeed conservative; but that makes no difference as to my opinion of movies. My favorite director is Woody Allen, and he routinely attacks my belief system. (Not least by his very lifestyle!) I NEVER feel the need to tear down a film based on how it comports with my views on politics, religion or anything else. If it's well made, I can completely get into it. AVATAR just isn't well made. And I don't mean to sound like I lack humility; I'm not being arrogant, just baffled. AVATAR's flaws are so big, and so unavoidable, that I truly can't grasp how/why people are overlooking them.

It's simple enough. The world is in bad shape. Economically, politically, geologically even, things are tough all over; and AVATAR provides a major escape. You can almost literally "enter another world" thorugh it, a world of easy answers, hateful villains and too-good-to-be-true heroes. Have you read about AVATAR depression? On MSN.com some weeks ago there was an article quoting despondent fans who feel, after seeing the movie, that their lives have no meaning. Maybe people are relating to the entire experience of AVATAR as a way out of their own troubling existence; so its various poor qualities literally "don't matter". That would explain a lot.

effects which were completing these scenes.Ofc the missiles and the explosions,alla that,were cgi,it was obvious.
<p>But i am talking about the big effects of the movie like the dropship and the prawns,the main visual attractions of the film.These well really well made,but they are not compared at all with the Avatar's vfx.
<p>The effects in D9 were just that,distinguished effects in a movie.The effects in Avatar,on the other hand,they were not separated,but they were all together consisting an entire world,occupied by both living and cgi beings.
<p>Look the final battle between the Navi and the Terrans.Look the scene when Tsu Tey,a cgi character gets aboard the real platform which is part of a cgi shuttle,where real actors are shooting real weapons,while at the same in the background there is this cgi panorama of the planet, where hundrends of cgi crafts,creatures and characters are flying and fighting each other.You have a full dynamic scene of epic scale,with a blend of real and cgi elements,which ,with the help of 3D,is so immersive that you dont think for a second,that whatever you see is effects.
<P>That scene alone proves that what Cameron and WETA have accomplished with Avatar is phenomenal.D9 did a great job in the visuals,but Avatar made history with them.
I mean its really astounding what Cameron and WETA have accomplished with

I'm glad you don't let your political persuasions affect your views on the film. There are plenty of people that do, many subconsciously.
<P>
Story is, of course, of paramount importance. I personally am not a fan of Transformers I & II for example - and those showcase great fx, but, in my opinion, boring & contrived story and annoying performances. I think Avatar has a strong, straight-forward story and decent performances - and excellent direction.
<P>
You say, "Avatar isn't well made" and "Avatar's flaws are so big and so unavoidable." I disagree and will happily debate you.
<P>
What specifically makes you feel it isn't well made? What are the huge, unavoidable flaws?

... it's that it's extreemly well made. To argue otherwise is folly. comply about story and acting and whatever, but to complain about it being not wel made shows, at the very least, a certain ignorance about film. AVATAR is everything but bad filmmaking.

a cgi rocket? a cgi explosion? such things have become a routine in the vfx.they are small details and as such,i dont pay attention to them.
<p>Thats why the filmmakers want to make in every movie,more impressive effects in order to astonish the audience.Giant robots fighting each other,big cockroaches crying,blue cat-people making love.These are the attractions of the films,these are the criteria that will judge the vfx quality of the film.

a cgi rocket? a cgi explosion? such things have become a routine in the vfx.they are small details and as such,i dont pay attention to them.
<p>Thats why the filmmakers want to make in every movie,more impressive effects in order to astonish the audience.Giant robots fighting each other,big cockroaches crying,blue cat-people making love.These are the attractions of the films,these are the criteria that will judge the vfx quality of the film.

I think you're absolutely correct. Repeat business has made 'Avatar' a cinematic juggernaut for the very reasons you've espoused. Audiences want to escape, and what better way than via a beautiful, sublime world of exotic wildlife and high adventure. 'King Kong' was such a hit at the time for the very same reason. When we're old men we'll mention to our grandkids the wonder of seeing 'Avatar'; just as my grandfather never forgot the exact experience of seeing 'King Kong' upon its release.

If you don't mind, I'll just re-state my thoughts on AVATAR's flaws from above. I'm really tired now, and I doubt I could say it much better. But I will say these are why I think it's "not well made" -- of course it's "well made" in that it doesn't have jump-cuts or bad lighting, and the shots flow smoothly. It's proficient; but its problems, to me, constitute poor filmmaking. Anyway, here are my observations. What do you disagree with?<p>Every time I find people arguing about AVATAR I want to jump in, but I can't quite pinpoint what argument I want to make. I definitely didn't like it, and was bored virtually throughout its length. But that's not it. I guess I feel an almost global dissatisfaction with everything about this movie. For one thing the 3D didn't especially work for me; only a few shots were really strikingly 3D. That's a phenomenon I've experienced before, and I can hardly blame the movie for it; yet the movie itself shouldn't have to depend on 3D for me to like it. Instead it fails on some much deeper level. Of course, even its defenders admit the story is weak, even as they insist that "doesn't matter". To me that's the most absurd defense you could offer; why on earth DOESN'T a lame story = a bad movie? I almost feel AVATAR lovers have some sort of insecure suspicion that it really is bad, so they dismiss out of hand the most obvious (but certainly not the only) criticism it receives. In what other case does a weak, derivative, preachy, predictable story NOT negatively impact the movie? I'm at a loss here. All the STAR WARS prequels were eviscerated for their plots (maybe nots ROTS so much), and Lucas became the most hated man in film because of them. Why do so many choose to worship AVATAR for the same sins that made them condemn STAR WARS? Ditto the cardboard acting; indeed, Padme and Anakin were far more expressive than Jake, even as he was destroying a whole planet. When an actor's most noteworthy trait is his inability to maintain an American accent, something's very wrong. Yet again, AVATAR gets a pass. It's as if the fans have some mysterious personal stake in the film's success. I don't mean to mock or trash them; I just don't understand. This even extends to the movie's vaunted visuals. Sure, it has photorealisitc CGI -- which we've seen in movies since 1993. What's so amazing now? As has been noted elsewhere, the wonders of Pandora include space dogs, space horses and space rhinos, mostly with their earth-counterparts' traits intact, plus an extra set of legs. The bulk of Pandors's "breathtaking" scenery is a jungle like any on earth. Mel Gibson actually WENT TO a jungle -- and built a city there! -- for APOCALYPTO; that seems a far greater achievement than a GCI world that looks like Hawaii. I'll give 'em the floating islands; that really was a neat effect. The nighttime scenes were pretty as well. But that can't explain the wild praise people are heaping on this movie. I'm not trying to be a curmudgeon; I just can't fathom how all this mediocrity is garnering such adoration. Even the "climax" was a letdown: an air battle no more spectacular than any STAR WARS dogfight, that leads to, of all things, the climax of ALIENS! Cameron ends the movie by ripping off HIMSELF! I was dumbfounded by this dispiriting failure. All through the movie, I told myslef it would get better by the end; the "mother of all battles," as Cameron described it, must surely be thrilling. And to see him resort to an ending he himself used decades ago was almost jaw-dropping. Has no one noticed this? Does this also "not matter," like the plot, acting, dialogue, and visuals? I shudder to contmplate two more of these movies being foisted upon us. Will everyone love them as much, as they repeat (assuming they do) the same shortcomings and lazy solutions of the first movie? What am I missing here?

... had the same circumstance in its favor. The world was in the midst of a similar malaise, and it came along and lifted them out of it. I do feel SW was a better film, but there's something about escaping this glum world into a cooler, better one...

or rather you didnt "get it",this does not mean that the film is not a masterpiece and it does not give you the right to criticize us for loving and defending it.
<p>now i can answer to all your arguments,but i have to go to bed.I might answer you tomorrow if nobody else wont.But for now i will tell you only this: If you have stopped being a kid,you will never experience and thus understand, the magic that is Avatar.

Everyone seems to be giving Cameron a pass here... like they do to Lucas. But a bad film,is a bad film regardless of whether a fanboy god made it or not. As said above, if it fails in the fundamentals of film making = a bad film, regardless of how pretty you think it looks.Would everyone be going gaga over the same mediocre film if it had Bret Ratners name as director in the credits? I think not.

The film is nominated for - and will likely win - Best Picture.
<P>
There are plenty of Best Picture films that I personally didn't care for, but you don't see me making an ass out of myself by definitively announcing that "they suck" when being a pretty well-made film that appeals to a lot of people is prerequisite for a nomination, much less a win.
<P>
Not saying anyone has to like Avatar or refrain from criticizing it, but at least have the depth of character to acknowledge that the Academy (the film-makers) sees Avatar as one of the best films of the year.

Actually, the greatest praise you cna give a CGI visual special effect is that you didn't noticed. The photorealistic ones are the hardest to achieve, and the ones we should praise the most. Because it's far harder to simulate reality we know of, then fantasy stuff.

While i don't agre with you about AVATAR, i feel your pain. You remind me and a few others who were bewildered and amazed at the blind acceptance of exacrable piece of shit JJ Abrams's TWILIGHT TREK, and how we made eforts to try to explain why the movie is bad and how the supporters just pretended they didn't listen, didn't read, and came up with pre-fabricated answers taken verbatim from Paramount Pictures' own adverizement department. I don't agree with you about AVATAR, but i understand you.

Well, i don't FULLY agree with what you said, but some i do agree with, and some of your complains are the same that i have about the movie. Personally, i was particulary underwelmed bymost of the pandorian wild-life, and my major grip goes to the na«vi themselves, which aren't as alien as most give it credit, they are just oversized humans with a pimping blue paint job who look like darling pussy cats, and worst of all for me was the "romance" (i even cringe at calling it that), which for me is one step shorter of bestiality.

The Oscar argument doesnt hold water, Lot's of bad films get nominated and win. Crash being one of them. SLumdog Millionaire being another. Or the wrong film wins, like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan, I'm still angry about that one. I mean shit even Juno was nominated. JUNO!!! My point is let's keep it about the film itself, things have been going well in that respect so far.

As far as the production design goes. Shockingly Lazy. it's mystifying to me int hat respect given that Cameron describes some truly unique and awe inspiring creatures in the script treatment. I mean I know he admitted to sort of dumbing down the story for a mass audience, by why dumb down the creatures? I think people would love to see some really great new aliens that look like nothing before, it feels like decades since I've seen anything like that. Sad.

Friend, you know we agree in mostthings, so it sads me a bit that you had to use the "the child inside2 argument to defend your love for AVATAR. you know, that excuse can be used for anything. The JJ Abrams' TWILIGHT TREK supporters have also used that excuse to justify their love for that retard mvie and to attack and bash it's critics. And it's an empty argument. And truly, by that "child inside" stuff is just another way of saying "sens eof wonder", which is a far more apt description of that feeling. And me, i say it's people who lack a snse of wonder that would find that Twilight Trek movie fascinating. And sense of wonder doesn't go out with adulthood. It might even intensify, due to our life experience. The good thing about AVATAR is that Cameron does understand the concept of sense of wonder, and he can project that into his movies. Namely, AVATAR. However, that sens eof wonder doesn't predujice against reason. In fact, both are compatible. The former is weaker without the later. This is why you find so many scientists full of a sens eof wonder when they are studying their disciplines, and most particulary, astronomy and astrophysics and all related subjects. AVATAR does provide a sens eof winder like few movies today seem to be able. Howeve,r that doesn't mean i'm going to kill all my intellectual faculties just so i can slavelish accept a movie. No, i can't do that with AVATAR. i like it, i defend it against most bashers, but there's things in the movie, flaws, which i can't in all honesty dismiss or deny. And i don't do that because i lack a sens eof wonder. I do that BECAUSE i have a sense of wonder.

I was having a very similar convo with a friend of a friend tonight at a bar and we were talking about Star Trek vs. Avatar. We agreed they were both not good movies but he took solace in that the very skeleton structure of Avatars story at least follows a tight narrative whereas Star Trek is a mess structurally, which I agreed completely (seriously what was Star Trek even about?). Whereas I could at least take away from Star Trek a mostly very strong cast and characters I gave a shit about following through two hours of run time, particularly a dynamic lead performance, even if that run time consisted of plot holey gobbletygook. Thought that was interesting.

to look pretty much like CG you'd seen on film before? I'm just not getting why people think this looks photo realistic. If I had never heard of the film Avatar, and someone showed me a screenshot of one of the Na'Vi standing next to one of the humans in the film and told me the Na'Vi was some kind of practical, I would have called that person a fuckin' liar. Like you I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but it doesn't look organic. One can disagree all they want but the fact of the matter is I wouldn't believe for a second that any given shot of that film was anything but computer rendered graphics. Its well detailed CG to be sure, but obvious CG nonetheless. In fact the dinosaurs int eh first Jurassic Park look far more organic than the Thanator in Avatar (to be fair though on a creature level that first JP has yet to be topped by anything in terms of realism)<P>I remember when the trailer came out and people were screaming bloody murder that the FX looked like nothing more than well done CG, not the photo realism promised, well what changed? The film as a whole looks exactly like that trailer. It's not like the visuals were drastically improved from trailer to film. It seems to me to be a bit of retroactive thinking. Because what was good for the goose then, is good for the gander now.

My major complain about the Na'vi is that they behave and talk and act and think like humans. They even banter like humans. they mock and react like humans. And they act not just liek humans, but like AMERICANS! I tell you, there's human cultures in the world where their behavior would be more alien then the Na'vis! Hell, anybody from medieval times or ancient greece or rome would think and act more alien then the Na'vis! This to me is the thing that bothers me the most about the movie. And my major complain is the very na'vi everybody fell inlove with, the princess played by Zoe Saldana. Maybe the poor girl is just being typecasted, but frankly, she is so far, and as seen from AVATAR and JJ Abrams' TWILIGHT TREK, a one note actress, playing the same character with the same attitude. She played both the Na'vi princess and Uhura as if they are ghetto princesses cliches. I was expecting to see her break into song singing "No Scrubs" in both movies. she looks like ou tof one of those female R&B/soft-rap videos, which i call "complain songs" because it's about girls protesting and having an attitude because their men don't treat them like godesses. I tell you, Saldana's acting in TWILIGHT TREK and AVATAR is something out of a TLC video! I'm sure she must be a darling, a sweet girl to meet, and she is one good looking lady, but her stitch is wearing thin, and just on two movies already!

What was Star Trek, i mean, Twilight Trek about? In the worlds of JJ Abrams' himself, it was aobut nothing. JJ abrams in the audio comentary even says the recurring theme in his movie is Kirk hanging from great heights. I don't know if to cry or laugh at such display of arrogant displecency.

... AVATAR's revolutionary use of CGi was not so much photorealism, which he admited wasn't nothing particulary different form other CGI movies, but the complexity of the enviroment created for the movie. Which had not done before on such scale.

the best effects are the ones that you dont notice.But that applies to all the effects,not just the small ones.For instance take the Iron Man armor.Thats the main effect of the movie and a very difficult one because it has to interact with a real environment and a real actor.But still its so well executed that you dont even notice that it is cgi.Ofc the movie had a lot of other,of smaller scale and difficulty,effects but the most important vfx accomplishment is the IM suit.
<p>And i will judge the movie as vfx goes, from it.The same applies with D9,with the prawns being its biggest accomplishment and i will judge it from it.And as Avatar goes for me at least,its biggest vfx accomplishment which overshadows all the rest films,is the final scene when that giant blue female cgi alien holds in its hands,this small,fragile body of a real human.That scene is a breakthrough in vfx,because you dont even for a moment notice that the alien is cgi,but as real as the human its holding.its breathtaking.
<p>Asimov about the kid inside you argument.First of all i dont think that it only means a sense of wonder,but also a sense of innocence , a sense of curiosity and a sense of sensitivity.
<p>Secondly i didnt use it as excuse to ignore the flaws of the movie (which it has) but to stress the fact that when you become too cynic,too strict,too prejudiced, you will eventually arrive to the other end as a moviegoer: you will never be able to enjoy movies and criticize them properly,since you wont let their magic to touch you.
<p>You have to agree that even in science,sometimes there is enough scientific prejudice and dogmatism to prevent things to be examined with the proper open mind.The same applies with movies,with art,with life.
<p>What i am trying to say that ofc as an adult you will criticize a movie from an intellectual and artistic perspective,but it is also essential to be a little of a kid in order to correctly appreciate and judge movies like Avatar,Star Wars,Indiana Jones,LOTR,the modern comic-movies,Harry Potter,etc.
<p>Take for instance the original SW.yeah it didnt have the best story and direction in the world,BUT there were not enough to distract you from the cinematic experience and magic that it was SW.i read on an article about SW,that before its public premiere,lucas had shown the film in a private screening to Scorsese,Depalma,Coppola and Spielberg.After the movie ended,all the directors totally trashed the film,accusing of it that it didnt have characters,it didnt have story,except for Spielberg who congratulated Lucas and told him that he is going to become billionaire and that all the world will be talking about his movie.Get it? the other directors focused too much on the partial elements of the movie,that they missed the big picture,the magic that was this movie.
<p>To sum up,i love to see alien robots to fight each other,but i will never say that TF2 is a good movie because of that.i am adult enough to know that it is a POS.
<p>On the other hand as an adult i know that Avatar has some flaws,which are not big enough to negate the fact that the movie is a masterpiece,and i also know that kid inside me fucking loves it.

"the other directors focused too much on the partial elements of the movie,that they missed the big picture,the magic that was this movie" Exactly!! The number of movies that could withstand the nitpicking and faultfinding aimed at AVATAR, and still be deemed great, could be counted on your fingers with a few left over. But any one who considers himself a real movie lover doesn't go to the theater with a scalpel! And they don't go with the attitude of "this is gonna suck until proven otherwise." Sorry, but even CITIZEN KANE doesn't fare well once you dissect every damn molecule of the film. It's about the WHOLE, not about each and every component part. The pseudo-intellectuals here who think that the only valid film criticism is micro-analyzing every frame are missing out on a lot of life's little pleasures. Sad, sad creatures who only derive pleasure from sitting at their keyboards and telling the rest of us what stupid tasteless fucks the rest of us are. As Jed Clampett said, "Pitiful, just pitiful."

The kid insie argument for me always reads as a coup out. and please, about science, don't repeat the nonsense said by the creationists and superstitious. Science adsvances, and, as said by Carl Sagan, delivers the goods because it's the least dogmatic and least prejudiced endevors created by men in all it's history. What so many ignorant of science call "dogmatism" is their absolute ignorance that in science, what's accepted is what can be proved. Otherwise, it's not accepted. That's not dogmatism, it's scepticism, which, unlike the dogma-heads believe, is a good thing.<br><br>And frankly, all that child wonder stuff, mor often then not is just an excuse for people to psych themselves to acccept what shouldn't be unaceptable. It's desinginuous. One doesn't need to feel like a child to get carried away by a well constructed fantastic adventure. Adults can too, without cease being adults. The advantage of adulthood is that we can see through the bullshit.

... i do like AVATAR, and despiste my complains, i classify it as an achievement. And all the filmakers who made those too highly acclaimed hack jobs in 2009, like GI Joe, Transformers 2, Star Trek, Watchmen, etc, they all have a lot to learn from Cameron. Of course, hacks that they are, they will learn the wrong lesson.

Science is not dogmatic,but people are,and there are dogmatic people even in science.There are a lot of examples with that.
And you keep mixing the metaphorical meaning of the phrase: "the kid inside you" with acting and thinking as a kid.its not the same thing.When you say that as an adult you enjoy a fantasy tale,well its exactly like saying that the kid inside you enjoys it.This is not wrong,its the truth.And that in no way concludes that you stopped filtering the movie from your more mature perspective of things.You keep using both things.
<p>As another fan said about Avatar: as i kid i enjoy the fun of the movie but also as an adult i appreciate its content.

How you got that kid inside? You ate a bad pizza and a kid inside popped up?<br><br>As for the dogmatic science stuff, that happens far, far less then you think. What exists is the vast majority of scientists demanding hard evidence before accepting any new idea. And this is how it should be. Or else science would be nothing more then just a new age cult.

I would say just the opposite: the kid lives! But I separate my sense of wonder from critical judgement. Here are some examples:<p>I loved the STAR WARS prequels. I was never bored watching them, and every one of them had at least one extended sequence (usually more) that I found fascinating. (For instance, I loved the podrace, and the 3-way lightsaber fight, in EP.I.) But were they good movies? No way. And I would never pretend they were. Another example: Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS was largely a bust for me. Cruise was tiresome, Fanning was shrill, and that sullen kid was a nonentity. But one shot in it dazzled me: when the tripod first starts shooting, and the camera tracks backward in front of Cruise as he runs for his life. It precedes him at top speed, down the street, into a store, and back out onto the sidewalk, as people are getting zapped all around him. One lady gets vaporized, and he runs through her, emerging covered in gray "people-dust" -- I was just mesmerized. Again, though, the movie was lame. Or how 'bout that long inside-the-car shot in CHILDREN OF MEN? Utterly spectacular, though the film overall left me cold. <p>Yet the Kid Inside was enthralled by those various scenes; they were truly things I'd never seen before. My sense of wonder is alive and well; it just wasn't (much) engaged by AVATAR. And I don't criticize people for loving the movie; I just don't see why they so vigorously defend it as a whole. Asimov Lives, for instance, acknowledges some of its flaws but still likes it. But you call it a "masterpiece;" that kind of thing is what so bewilders me.<p> Say -- do you have any thoughts on my "escape" theory? That audiences love it for its power to transport them, even more than for the movie itself?

I would say just the opposite: the kid lives! But I separate my sense of wonder from critical judgement. Here are some examples:<p>I loved the STAR WARS prequels. I was never bored watching them, and every one of them had at least one extended sequence (usually more) that I found fascinating. (For instance, I loved the podrace, and the 3-way lightsaber fight, in EP.I.) But were they good movies? No way. And I would never pretend they were. Another example: Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS was largely a bust for me. Cruise was tiresome, Fanning was shrill, and that sullen kid was a nonentity. But one shot in it dazzled me: when the tripod first starts shooting, and the camera tracks backward in front of Cruise as he runs for his life. It precedes him at top speed, down the street, into a store, and back out onto the sidewalk, as people are getting zapped all around him. One lady gets vaporized, and he runs through her, emerging covered in gray "people-dust" -- I was just mesmerized. Again, though, the movie was lame. Or how 'bout that long inside-the-car shot in CHILDREN OF MEN? Utterly spectacular, though the film overall left me cold. <p>Yet the Kid Inside was enthralled by those various scenes; they were truly things I'd never seen before. My sense of wonder is alive and well; it just wasn't (much) engaged by AVATAR. And I don't criticize people for loving the movie; I just don't see why they so vigorously defend it as a whole. Asimov Lives, for instance, acknowledges some of its flaws but still likes it. But you call it a "masterpiece;" that kind of thing is what so bewilders me.<p> Say -- do you have any thoughts on my "escape" theory? That audiences love it for its power to transport them, even more than for the movie itself?

I think STAR TREK was to me what AVATAR was to you. I liked it well enough, though it had big flaws -- the biggest, to my mind, being that Nero could easily have come back and SAVED HIS PLANET rather than coming back solely for revenge on Spock. I can't believe that in its YEARS of development and production no one noticed this. But I had fun with the movie in general. And yeah, AVATAR's wildlife was a letdown. Does Cameron think so little of his audience, that they won't accept truly exotic alien creatures?

and he likes only good pizzas.your point? and again i am talking about dogmatic scientists.they do exist,thats my point.
<p>Countryboy.The kid inside me hates the SW prequels because they are really very bad pizzas.Not only because as story,characters,direction and acting goes,they were dreadful,but as a whole they didnt even had the slightest amount of cinematic magic.New Hope might not have the greatest story of the world,but in the scene when young Luke watches the binary sunset,and you see in his eyes his desire to go out there,and live the adventures that lie there.Now this is magic,this is the kind of things that brings out the kid that is inside you,even if you are the oldest fuck in the world.Are there any similar scenes in the prequel trilogy? i think not
<p>Now the difference is that Avatar is a package,which apart from the magic,it has also a lot of content for the thinking audience.But if you cant as a kid feel its magic,what makes you think that as an adult will understand its content? well?

It was fine, but unremarkable. The jungles looked real, the creatures were like any other CGI in terms of realism. It's interesting that JURASSIC PARK remains so convincing -- maybe 'cause it was a mix of CG and practical? "Real" T-rex foot and head, "real" raptor puppets for some shots...

I really was awestruck in the podrace. I loved the night-chase through Coruscant in Ep.II, and the rain-lashed Camino with its weirdly ethereal cloners. I loved the opening battle of Ep.III, and I was fascinated by Gen. Grievous. Every time he was onscreen I was entertained. And I thought A NEW HOPE had a great story. I just didn't get any of that feeling from AVATAR.

I have the impression the 3D was supposed to be striking. Others have marveled at it, not downplayed it, as if it changes everything; in fact that's why I'm considering seeing it again, in IMAX: to give it another chance to wow me. <p>As for the story, there's a difference between "simple" and "boring/predictable/derivative". STAR WARS had a simple story, but it had such twists as the heroes getting sucked into the Death Star, the mentor being murdered halfway through, and the deserter returning to save the day in the end. At the same time, I remember being a little kid and being amazed at how the story went from one cool scene to another, INEVITABLY: Luke HAD to chase R2D2, which led to the Sand People and Ben; they HAD to go to the bar for a pilot, then HAD to go to Alderaan; thus they HAD to get sucked into the Death Star, which was where Leia was, etc. etc. It seemed like a perfect story to me. Yet people all over the world responded to it. It wasn't "too complex" for France or Brazil or wherever... it was just a good story.<p> That's a great point about Quaritch. I didn't think of that at all, and it does lend the climax real thematic resonance. My only objection is, it still LOOKED just like Ripley and hte Alien Queen. Whatever argument you can make -- and yours is a good one -- it can't undo my visceral reaction to that scene, which was "Gee, I saw this 20 years ago..." I came up with a cool fix, which I wish they'd used: if Quaritch had been piloting one of those neat helicopters (one of the few designs I really liked), and Jake were flying the red banshee, and they fought that way, it would ahve been spectacular. It could even have had a stronger thematic meaning, 'cause Quaritch was controlling military hardware, while Jake was working with the banhee, and ultimately with Eywa herself. Plus it would have looked REALLY great as they swooped and soared and grappled high above the ground... I still feel the climax was weak, though I like what you said about it. <p> I don't think we should "cut Worhington slack." If he's bad in this movie, he's bad in this movie. And I never said anything bad about Zoe.<p>Maybe Cameron did revolutionary things with the camera, but nothing looked that revolutionary to me. After being so heralded, AVATAR looked like any other fantasy/sci-fi movie. Time will tell if it changes the industry, but in the meantime it didn't change my experience of this particular movie. <p> Who knows though: maybe IMAX will change everything...

jesus man,these things are some of the most overused cliche ever.Personally,when i watched New Hope for the first time in my life,i knew that Obi was going to die,that Han solo would return to save Luke from the most crucial moment,etc.
<p>Country i think you have left nostalgia to cloud your judgment.

Sully: "I see you".<br><br>Na'vi princess: "I see you! *pause* You are one ugly motherfucker! And a cripple too?? Shiiiite!! You have been playing me for a fool, sucker!! You aint get my blue ass! Daddy and mommy were right, i should had chosen that big ebony, i mean, blue cat piece of hunk, instead i wasted my tiem with this this half a man?!? I have beem played! You scrub aint got no love from me, that's fo sure! Get your pathetic cripple ass out of here, or i though you outta da window, yo!"

You may be right about nostalgia. I was a child when I saw SW for the first time; but also, there've been 30 years' worth of stories since then, so things may seem obvious now that weren't then. Indeed, Lucas didn't even hit upon the idea of Ben's death till they were shooting. I know the "deserter returns!" thing has been done a lot since then; I recently saw it in a big Oscar-bait epic (don't wanna spoil which one), but I don't know how prevalent it was beforehand. But you may be right. Still, the story felt more tight and economical and surprising to me than AVATAR. <p>It may just be that somehow I felt I knew everything about AVATAR just from the idea: A guy "becomes" an alien as humans gear up to invade. You KNOW he'll prefer their culture, fall in love, change sides, be revealed as a traitor, redeem himself, and save the day. In SW you know he'll save Leia, but that happens halfway through; nothing else if preordained. In fact I recall literally thinking they were going to somehow sneak in and dismantle the Death Star's weapons to defeat it -- a far cry from the battle we got instead. I grant you though, the eyes of a child may be coloring my perception.

Maybe I should have said not, "only a few shots were strikingly 3D," but rather "only a few shots were NOTICEABLY 3D." I didn't just get used to the 3D, I didn't even see it. For the most part, AVATAR was like any normal movie. The screen wasn't a "window" for me, it was a movie screen like any other. Again, that may be the fault of the theater I saw it in, and again, IMAX may change that, if I see it that way. But it really didn't happen for me.<p>I'm glad you liked my idea for the end. I get what you're saying, but I just don't like the palpable letdown of seeing a 20-year-old climax, even if it can be justified thematically. I remember reading an interivew with the members of Monty Python (bear with me here), where they described their practice of meeting regularly to present ideas for the show. It was a ruthless process of either instant acceptance or instant rejection; and as they explained, "There was no arguing your point: if no one laughed, it wasn't funny." That's how I feel about this scene: though it can technically be defended, it was boring to watch. Period. I still maintain that a helicopter/banshee fight could be as meaningful; you could argue that Quaritch was so tech-oriented, or so cut off from himself, that he was unable to HAVE an avatar; he had no "self" to speak of, and could only manipulate mechanical equipment, while Jake had an avatar AND was connected to the banshee AND was in league with Eywa. Anything can be argued; but the power of such an air battle would have trumped that of the AMP suit/avatar fight. And frankly, I'm just sick of mech suits at this point. ALIENS, MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, even DISTRICT 9... enough already.<p> Worthington may well be vulnerable as he "starts out," but I've never IN MY LIFE heard any actor given a pass for that reason. Jake Lloyd had far more of an excuse than Worthington -- he was 8! -- but he was shredded or his performance as Anakin. I think "bad is bad" IS black and white. Just as we don't dismiss, say, Ian McShane -- "Well sure he's 'good,' he's been doing this for years, big deal" -- we shouldn't roll over for an inept beginner.<p>I don't think AVATAR is illogical, I just think it's predictable. Again, I feel SW is inevitable: the reason the 'droids land on Tatooine is that's where Leia was going, with the express purpose of finding Ben. The two scripts are, to me, equally sound in that sense. I just always knew where AVATAR was going, usually long before it got there; STAR WARS carried me along under its own power. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the names, but I appreciate the metaphors of eyes etc. in AVATAR. It wasn't bereft of all quality, it was just vastly overhyped and, in all the ways I've listed, I still feel it was inferior. Who knows: maybe with this story out of the way, the sequels will be fanastic. I'd still rather see Cameron move on, but he may surprise me.<p>And seriously, what's a science puke?

I can't wait to call someone a puke!<p>Didn't Leia, in the video message R2D2 projects, say "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!"? I thought the whole point of her mission was to find him. That's also why R2 runs away in the first place: he's been programmed to find Obi-Wan. I aaccept that Ben never says he was watching over Luke, but that doesn't bother me. (Since Ben lied about his dad's identity, he also wouldn't want Luke to think he knew who he was, would he? He could have feigned not knowing him, lest it arouse Luke's suspcions...) <p>I don't dispute that actors improve; but I still say we don't normally overlook weak acting 'cause a person's just starting out. I repeat, I've never seen that in my life.<p>I think it might be a coincidence about OB1. (It is "wan", after all, and there's no number "ben".) Meanwhile, I don't deny that SW has flaws. I just dont' find them in the ways I do with AVATAR. Ooooh, I just thought of a cool idea. I'm gonna go on Rottentomatoes, and see if critics complained about SW's lame plot, as someone listed above all the complaints about AVATAR's. I'll let you know what I find...

STAR WARS is 94% fresh, and AVATAR is 82%; furthermore, I read the first three pp. of review excerpts, and found 3 or 4 "fresh" SW reviews that nevertheless called it derivative or flawed, whereas the same smount of "fresh" reviews of AVATAR yielded 11 such complaints. On the other hand, there are only 60-some reviews of STAR WARS posted, and around 250 of AVATAR; so amybe it's not a fair comparison. Make of that what you will...

For me, even if Lucas came up with the Anakin/Darth transformation after the fact, I consider it not a flaw but a stroke of genius. It truly raised SW to an even higher level of power and drama, and is one of the most enduring revelations in movie history. I think the "lie" works well enough, even without foreshadowing etc. (which I agree is absent); and it gives us a great fulcrum for the whole series. I can't find fault with that.<p>I remember that in my old STAR WARS novelization (good grief), Leia tells Ben in her message, "My mission to meet personally with you has failed." (I read it endlessly as a kid.) I don't know if that's in the movie or not, but she's clearly trying to get to Ben all along in the book. It seems clear that that idea was in Lucas's mind from the beginning.<p>I hold firm on the numbers/names thing, and the acting. Worthington may go on to be great; but now, in this movie, he isn't. And that's all we have to judge him by, IN THIS MOVIE.<p>I think your last paragraph sums up our differences well. You liked -- even appreciated as a plus -- AVATAR's predictability. I felt it was boring, and a big detraction. Maybe that's as far as this argument can go. What do you think?

March 5, 2010, 12:51 p.m. CST

by CountryBoy

To me, Leia's line makes her mission to find Ben very clear. But is it in the movie? I'll have to watch next time it's on Spike and see! I'm intrigued now. <p> The "Darth is Dad" thing only came up because I said Ben "acting like he didn't know Luke" made sense in light of it. I didn't mean it made SW a better film. I agree that would be unfair to AVATAR. My praise of that revelation was only a response to your seeming dismissal of it as "Lucas messing things up." Maybe I misunderstood you.<p>Again, I think we're at an impasse. You feel AVATAR is better constructed, directed and acted than SW; I was restless and dissatisfied with it, but not with SW. What can I say? I still find Worthington a poor actor, the story something I've seen virtually in its entirety already (even if SW contained preexisting elements, AVATAR recalls the whole of DANCES WITH WOLVES, THE LAST SAMURAI...), and its effects, while totally competent, not the game-changers that were predicted. (Your MAGNIFICENT SEVEN example is a good one: I saw that for the first time about a month ago, and you're right, it was almost the same situtaion.)<p>I honestly can't recall a story with ALL the elements you cite pre-STAR WARS, though they certainly may exist. (Maybe in mythology.) Afterwards, absolutely, to the point of cliche. But SW seemed to do it first, or better, or something. (Or maybe it just combined them better, as you suggest.) Indeed, time will provide the best resolution to this debate. Will AVATAR enter pop culture to the extent that STAR WARS did? Will people be quoting it thirty years from now? Maybe we can only wait and see...

I forgot that!<p>I was indeed a child when I first saw SW; so it's imnpossible to gauge how I'd react if seeing it new today. But even if I'd like it less as an adult, that doesn't strengthen AVATAR's position, it just weakens STAR WARS'. I might find it dull if encountering it anew; but I KNOW I found AVATAR dull. Nothing can change that. <p>As far as 3D game-changing technology, what I meant was, it didn't "change the game" for ME. It was touted as an ultra-revolutionary advance -- whether by Cameron himself or just overenthusiastic fans, I don't remember -- but, as I've lamented, it was like any other movie. Sure, the CGI was good; but it's routinely good in most movies. Kong was no less believable to me, nor was any STAR WARS prequel. This may be another "time will tell" category: the future may be altered by AVATAR, but the movie itself appeared no more dazzling than any other.<p> I don't buy the "it's high time we had a retelling of this story" argument. Do SOMETHING new with the plot. It just struck me as lazy. And layering it with themes that were stale 20 years ago hardly seems an improvement. Everything from WALL STREET to JURASSIC PARK to CHILDREN OF MEN to Cameron's own ALIENS to this year's EDGE OF DARKNESS, to a thousand other things, has the same messages as AVATAR. For me, boring script + rote sermon does not = great movie. <p>Chewbacca didn't even get a medal in the Special Edition? He did in the novel!!

I know, EDGE OF DARKNESS is a remake -- so that's TWO more iterations of that theme, not one!<P>I think we're back to our original positions: you liked the predictability, I didn't. I can certainly enjoy movies on repeat viewings - but honestly, only up to a point. Sections of STAR WARS bore me. Some of my favorite movies of all times I've seen so often that they sometimes become dead to me: I know everything, the dialogue, the inflection with which it will be spoken, the timing of the cuts from shot to shot... (Luckily as time passes I forget, and they come back to life.) My enjoyment is not infinite. And it's REALLY not when I'm seeing a movie for the first time, and it feels like the tenth time. As I said, I think we've circled back to our earlier positions. I don't derive comfort or pleasure from knowing where the movie's going an hour before it gets there. <p> As for AVATAR's global popularity, I still have my "escape" theory: that at a difficult time in the world, people can escape to a different one through AVATAR, and will do so over and over again. (Did you read my mention of "AVATAR depression," where viewers are sad when the movie's over and they must return to their meaningless lives?) Indeed, I hypothesized above that similar factors helped SW itself to become the phenomenon it did. And while there may be "hidden depths" to the movie -- and your cool insight about Quaritch's avatar is one -- that doesn't change its "overt shallows." The experience of seeing things I've seen before, even if they can be justified in theory, is still dull to me. As I said, time will tell as to AVATAR's influence and future popularity. But the film itself is what it is: something I've already seen, with supposed wonders that were less than impressive, and a theme I could recite in my sleep. If you enjoy it despite that -- or even because of it! -- maybe we're just different. You can at least take comfort in the fact that millions around the world agree with you. (And I can take comfort in the fact that it didn't win the Oscar! :)) <p>I believe it was Alan Dean Foster who wrote the book, though it was credited to Lucas. Good call.

That's an interesting question: if the movie appealed to me, would it be a universal hit? I'd like to think so. I hope that for a movie to succeed it doesn't have to be dumbed down so the folks in other countries "get it." <p>In fact I just checked the top 10 worlwide grossers, to see if simplicity ruled; and while AVATAR and TITANIC are at the top, the list also includes THE RETURN OF THE KING (#3) and THE DARK KNIGHT (#5). Those are far more complex and intelligent movies than AVATAR, if you ask me. Granted, they're not #1; but they did well enough to encourage me that you needn't aim only for the lowest common deniminator. I have nothing against being "viewer friendly and action packed" -- that's what I want! -- but I don't believe those adjectives and "surprising and creative" are mutually exclusive. (For what it's worth, the list is rounded out by various HARRY POTTER's, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN's, and, stunningly, THE PHANTOM MENACE!) <p>I was mostly kidding about the Oscar -- hence the :) -- though I am slightly pleased that AVATAR didn't win. (Apparently Cameron made a video in which he tries to steal Bigelow's Oscars but she catches him; it sounds pretty funny!)<p>I can only imagine how STAR WARS struck you upon first hearing of it; to me it was like a dream come true. Just as you couldn't have predicted its subsequent influence, maybe I will be astounded by AVATAR's reach in the years to come. But I don't know what else to say. For now, it just didn't do it for me. Maybe the sequels will. <p> P.S. I didn't read the scriptment, but I did read the synopsis over at CHUD. There are lots of cool ideas there, but he story is the same -- thus I may have reacted similarly even to its earliest iteration. (Who knows though: Jake's inner journey seems much richer there; that, plus the wealth of fascinating details, might have made all the difference...

I feel AVATAR is indeed dumbed down -- not because it's a simple story, but because it's one whose events I can see coming a mile away, and I've been seeing them my whole life. I hold out hope that a truly intelligent movie -- a more accessible TDK, if you will -- can challenge its supremacy. Maybe an AVATAR sequel will be that film. I'm with you though, "simple" and "dumbed down" are not the same; we just disagree on which term applies to AVATAR itself.<p>I may read the scriptment; I just thought it would be like 40 pp, and didn't want to get into something so much bigger. Also, cheapskate that I am, I couldn't find a free download. :) I'll keep looking. The Oscar video was posted on msn.com, I believe. (I actually didn't watch it -- home internet too slow -- but I plan to.)<p>Interesting idea about the "highest common denominator." It could even be argued that that's true philosophically or spiritually; but not narratively, not to me. (Again, we differ.) We seem to agree on virtually everything except the fundamental act of watching AVATAR. We had two different experiences. I think that's the crux of the matter...

That's yet another interesting theory. I don't know if I would buy it, but it's possible. To me, a real "Outsider" movie would be some kind of non-narrative indie, such as Harmony Korine might make (if you're familiar with him). AVATAR seems pretty "establishment," a franchise-ready actioner that espouses many of Hollywood's perennial themes, as I've mentioned. <p>I get what you're saying, and it sounds really intriguing; I'm just not sure this is an example of it. It may be. But I still think the idea of audiences "escaping" into the movie could be the cause of its popularity. (Or other factors neither of us has hit upon.) And as for it being a conscious decision of Cameron's vs. a fading of his artistry, I say again, time will tell. If his future movies build on AVATAR in depth and complexity, I'll know you were right; if they remain as unsatisfying (to me), I'll suspect he really is in decline. We'll have to check back in three years...

You learn something new every day.<p>Actually, I found your own arguments much more articulate and powerful than AICN D's. He sets up a false dichotomy between AVATAR's simple (to me, simplistic) plot and an "overly obfuscated plot", as if the only two alternatives are near-remedial plainness and incomprehensible density. I wholeheartedly disagree. Further, he implies that "every other" big action movie has an equally lackluster story and characters. While you and I disagree about STAR WARS, I hope you would concur that JAWS, RAIDERS, DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, ALIENS, TRUE LIES, T2, MATRIX, and LOTR, to name a few, had richer plots or characters or both than AVATAR. I think AICN Downunder is being unfair to those movies.<p>To be sure, AVATAR's effects ARE the story. But I think that too is true of many other movies; what is JURASSIC PARK without its dino's, or SPIDER-MAN without Spider-Man? And as I said before, I wasn't all that dazzled by Pandora itself. As for the acting, it's beyond me how anyone could call an actor's American accent "Brooklyn via Ireland via Australia" and intend it as a compliment. Though I agree Zoe Saldana did a great job. <p>I didn't feel drowsy during AVATAR either -- and to give Cameron his due, I often AM drowsy in movies -- but I was generally bored. It comes back to what I've said before: I didn't like the bland, paint-by-numbers plot, or the lack of truly astounding imagery (several cool shots excepted) or the woodenness of the hero. Your defense of some of those elements is interesting, and plausible; but I repeat, post-film theorizing can't change the experience I had, of frustration and boredom and waiting for "the good stuff" that never really arrived. It may well be that AVATAR's "failings" were deliberate choices, and I just didn't agree with them. It may also be that the next AVATAR movie will change all that. But this movie left me adrift. <p>Incidentally, I'm not sure I'm glad to have introduced someone to Harmony Korine. :) His films that I would consider "outsider" can, I believe, generally be summed up as bizarre, disturbing and unfathomable. Don't say I didn't warn you...

... but it really doesn't change the experience for me. As I observed, your "Quaritch's avatar" idea is genuinely interesting food for thought; but I wouldn't want to sit through that scene again. I think the added touches and thematic elements are secondary to the action of the story and characters; they may be impressive in their own right, but if the "big picture" is lacking, they can't make up for it. (Again, I recognize that we differ on whether the "big picture" was indeed lacking.)<p> Among those movies I listed, I do feel that, say, Indy or Brody or McClane are more engaging than Jake; or that LOTR or THE MATRIX have better plots. To me they seem in a different class.<p>I agree, though, the sequel may change everything. Cameron has multiple worlds to play with among all those moons; I can just imagine (or, hopefully, I can't) what's in store for us. We'll have to revisit this argument after 2VATAR...